White dwarfs were justly highlighted there…
These collapsed old stars in the galaxy have (with a finite fraction of their population at least) proved immune to the onslaught of nature’s own ultra-fast analogs to CERN’s anticipated artificial ultra-slow mini black holes. This fact imposes constraints on the level of danger imparted by the artificial ones on our earth if successfully produced there.
A white dwarf contains about 100.000 times the mass of earth at the latter’s volume. The fact that it remains unscathed has consequences for an artificial black hole that is slow enough not to fly away but stay inside earth to circulate there. It must circle 30.000 times at its near-Keplerian speed of 10 km/sec, in order to have equally many passages through nucleons, before it starts to grow. Since one full circling takes about 1 hour, 30.000 circlings make up 30.000 hours or about 1.000 days or 3 years. The increased residence time inside the passed-through nucleons (with their inherently ultrafast quark motions) reduces the equivalence time by a factor of perhaps 1.000 to the order of 1 day.
On the other hand, we need safety margins of perhaps 100 in view of the vast number of safe passages of ultrafast mini black holes during the lifetime of a white dwarf. Therefore, the exponential growth phase inside earth (miniminiquasar formation) can only begin after a delay of several months.
It follows that the minimal survival time of earth, in case CERN’s cherished dream of black-hole production is vindicated (note that its detectors are blind to this success), is about 5 years. This low number owes its existence to the counterintuitive nature of exponential growth – the fact that it “suddenly” jumps up after a seemingly silent phase.
The sad fact that CERN consciously incurs this risk needs to be discussed by an independent panel during the collision-free 10 days that CERN still grants our planet.
Otto — seeing as you mention flux — the topic of that short paper I mashed together the other week, I feel obliged to comment. I calculated equivalence for terrestial flux every 5,000 years or so. If a white dwarf 100,000 times more massive was subjected to similar levels of CR exposure, the LHC would reach an equivalence at 100,000 x 5,000 = 500,000,000 years. Perhaps, in white dwarfs we trust then? I’d like you to peer review my paper, which references your work… Also — apologies if I missed your point on equivalence — though I noted you did not include number of LHC collisions in your calculation above.
Though if you apply a small percentage to φ(M) then of course you pull back in the estimates considerably. If you’ve done it, please show the math on what rate relativistic products can slow to sub-Keplerian speed on white dwarf traversal… and back to the dashboard argument.
Dear Tom: Thank you for the concrete questions. Your analysis is broader. I do not yet see exactly the relationship. Is it tiresome if I ask you to explain your question in different words again (since our independent intuitions need to be juxtaposed in a way everyone can follow easily)? Since your thinking is more complex, I think it is more easy for you to incorporate my (by comparison trivial) musings than vice versa. There is a decisive point in your thinking which I may have missed so far.
Thanks Otto — I am over in China this week on work so not a lot of free time for lateral thinking, but maybe we can bring you to that happy conclusion next week that White Dwarfs are a reasonable safety argument. I mostly think in terms of flux as relates close to my work area.
Quick thought — could do with example of a white dwarf with a close companion, i.e. in a tight binary star system — to find example of one with a good high level of CR exposure — Sirius B too young, though surely plenty out there… and as mentioned on another thread re neutron stars might need to consider magnetic field effects such that cosmic rays could be significantly deflected by the Lorentz force — though G&M have looked at that a bit already…
PS: In your calculations above Otto you fail to consider the escape velocity of the White Dwarf is much greater than that of the Earth. Therefore the figures from your musings are way out.
Misunderstanding, dear Tom: I did not consider white-dwarf-generated mini black holes but surface-generated ones, which all have near-luminal velocities just as on earth. Or did I misunderstand your point?
Hmmm… I think so Otto. You seemed to compare MBH on Earth to that of a White Dwarf by just comparing equivalent number of passages through nucleons, though in the latter case there is a much greater escape velocity to consider as well as the traversal.
I would have considered any White Dwarf will be quite successful at slowing down the initially near-luminal MBH, so you cannot compare a terrestial sub-kelperian MBH to White Dwarf traversal. I’d consider many White Dwarf to capture if MBH were stable…
You would think that a White Dwarf would also slow down one of Telemach’s predicted “micro quasars” which would capture a charged particle after it hit the second atom while passing through the White Dwarf…it might stop before the quark or whatever fell into the “charge neutralization” region. Therefore, WHite Dwarfs might not be so safe from accretion.
Keep in mind that in Starburst galaxies, cosmic ray fluxes are 1000 times higher than near the Solar System, so accretion estimates must be revised accordingly.
Shortly after the Big Bang, particle collisions might have generated lots of slow moving mini black holes.
Very interesting remarks, Mr. Conant.
1) It is not microquasars that white dwarfs would slow down: the latter attractor can only form after the first inrease in attraction by about 35 orders of magnitude has taken place. Until then, all celestial bodies remain immune.
2) Exciting idea with the starburst galaxies. One could measure white-dwarf occurrence rates in their eighborhood in principle, to get a better hand on the dangerousness of micro black holes.
3) Yes, but here further estimates with many unknowns would be needed (very many unknowns according to some).
Otto — sticking to the Sirius B example — assume 100,000 times the mass of earth at the latter’s volume. 5,200 km/sec escape velocity vs 11.2 km/sec escape velocity. Taking the growth of a single MBH captured in Sirius B at 5,000 km/sec with one captured in Earth at 10 km/s, the MBH which is captured in Sirius B will traverse nucleons at a rate 100,000 x 5,000/10 faster. That’s 50,000,000 times faster. Now Sirius B is 120 million years old, and in a binary pair — so will have a LOT of CR exposure.
Even if one MBH was captured within the first 20 million years of its existance, a ridiculously conservative estimate, it would be accreting for 100,000,000 years, at a rate 50,000,000 times faster. Therefore it would take an MBH on Earth at least 5,000,000,000,000,000 years to have any reason for concern…
Dear Tom:
Than you for thinking hard. But there is a misunderstanding here, I believe: Only ultraslow black holes can be capured inside earth. Right?
Ultrafast black holes must be passing right through white dwarfs unstopped. The rates I calculated yield a minimum circling for ultraslow artificial mini black holes inside earth. Of the size I indicated.
In your new argument you assume a continuum of black-hole speeds in the cosmic variety, if I understand correctly. Right?
So this is two different scenarios, only one of which is realistic, I am afraid. Right?
Otto — thanks for responding. I think you have the misunderstanding in this case. Yes — I assume only ultra-slow black holes — produced by the LHC — can be captured inside Earth. The ultra-fast black holes created from cosmic ray bombardment of Sirius B in this case, will be initially at near luminal speed, but I assume the traversal of the white dwarf of such a black hole is sufficient to slow this black hole to sub 5,200 km/sec.
Therefore I compare a single captured MBH at a nominal 5,000 km/s in Sirius B caused by cosmic ray bombardment with a captured MBH at a nominal 10 km/s in Earth caused by LHC collisions. If you do not believe that cosmic ray bombardment of white dwarfs can result in MBH capture, why do you then argue there is a need for superfluidity to explain the non-capture of MBH by a similar process in neutron stars…
“I assume the traversal of the white dwarf of such a black hole is sufficient to slow this black hole to sub 5,200 km/sec.”
Dear Tom: Thank you for making this clear. This is a no doubt an interesting assumption, but to make this assumption is tantamount to assuming that the cross section between the ultra-fast miniature black holes and quarks is large enough to kill all white dwarfs with a companion.
I avoided making this assumpton by assuming that the white dawrfs are traversed without essentially stopping the mBHs. I had to make this assumption on phenomenological grounds, or did I not?
Otto — agreed, in order to argue that there is a risk you would have to debate that such white dwarfs cannot capture MBH produced from cosmic ray exposure despite their densities in the region of 1 × 10^(9) kg/m3 and escape velocities over 5,000 km/sec. The figure I derived of at least 5,000,000,000,000,000 years to have any reason for concern testifies to this… Let me play devils advocate for a second so and assume you are correct that white dwarfs cannot capture such MBH -
I would then have to agree that Sirius B has not had sufficient CR flux over its lifetime (as I suggested in an earlier comment) to provide a safety assurance on LHC collisions.
If one could derive the probability of a single MBH capture in Sirius B to validate the safety argument, it would be appreciated — given that Sirius B has had 3×10^(19) CR at LHC energies over its lifetime (estimate based on 3×10^(21) on Earth). 100% probability?
You are right, we have to assume that the probability that all the very many [you say 1019) cosmic ray particles with a center-of-mass energy equivalent to that achieved at the LHC (which I would doubt at the moment, but this is not our concern here] natural bombardments of Serius B have not entailed enough of a braking force on a single one of them for the putative miniature black hole formed to have gotten stuck inside Sirius B. For otherwise, the star would long have been eaten inside out by the exponentially growing black hole stuck inside.
I agree that this (apart from the exact yet to be determined numbers) is what we have to assume.
Otto — No. Not what we have to assume. It is what should be determined. The point of debating the issue is not to ‘prove’ there is a risk, no more than it should be to ‘confirm’ there is no risk… but to determine if there is any risk.
Therefore please offer an explanation or proof as to why you think such MBH cannot be captured by white dwarf, or you should not continue this debate.
Well taken.
I give it a try. No one knows whether black holes can be generated at the center-of-mass energies of the LHC. If so, they are presumably very small. No one knows how small.
But there are probabilities. If the smallest possible black hole is a Planck hole, its mass is about 0.02 milligram and its size is about 10 to the minus 35 meters. Its energy would exceed CERN’s by about 16 orders of magnitude. So we are safe from this kind of a visitor emerging from Switzerland.
Only string theory allows for smaller black holes. But string theory is a mere figment of the imagination, and a mess at that. No one of the specialists speaks up although allegedly 98 percent of all theoretical physicists are string theorists (as I was told a decade ago).
Now my Telemach theorem proves string theory is right. All string theoreticians know about this but they do not want to be brought in connection with my fight with CERN.
Also Telemach does not prove all string theories right, or one of them, but only the basic assumption underlying all string (etc.) theories: That instead of point-shaped charges, nature makes only finite-size charged particles. So something “bores open” particles like electrons and quarks which up until now could be assumed to be point-shaped.
Specifically, Telemach says that “since all black holes are uncharged, charged particles cannot be point-shaped or maximally small for then they would be black holes and hence uncharged.
So we suddenly know for sure that space is not maximally good-natured in the smallest. Electrons have a structure. This structure could still be “very small” — as it must be to judge from neutrino experiments. The same holds true for quarks (who have an almost three orders of magnitude larger mass).
No one has any idea about their size. But: black holes cannot be smaller but are bound to be larger. This larger size could still be well below the Planck mass and Planck size.
But it is unlikely that nature’s smallest black holes are Planck sized. For this Planck-sizedness would presuppose that nature is not affected by the new law which prevents small-mass objects from being charged. So we are allowed to assume “with high probability” that nature’s smallest black holes are not Planck-sized but bigger.
How much bigger than 10 to the minus 35 meters, we do not know. We have not the slightest hint. But we know that CERN can produce concentrated masses of about 10 to the minus 23 g (the mass of one hydrogen atom) times 8.000 times two, at CERN’s current energies, or about ten to the minus 19 grams. This is less than 16 orders of magnitude below the Planck mass.Or else of the 17 orders of magnitude between the last generation of particle colliders, and CERN’s collider, CERN covers about one order, or about 6 percent.
In other words, since we do not know how many orders of magnitude nature does go below the Planck size, with her new “bored-openness” at very small masses, each of the 17 orders of magnitude available has the same a priori weight. This yields 6 percent for each of the 17 mass ranges. Hence the probability of CERN producing black holes at its current energy is 1/17 or 6 percent.
Let me stop here and first await your next question.
Otto — you have yet to answer my first point in any way which would warrant continuation of the debate to a ‘next question’. The only substance to your response is that you do not know the BH size. Please then assume that a BH area is about 10^(−32)cm^2 (provided to me in emails from LSAG last year in safety discussion), or derive an alternative BH area. In either case, if you wish to continue the debate, first explain why you believe an MBH traversing such white dwarf cannot be captured…
Incidentally Otto, if you define an MBH as a point of infinite density, the MBH horizon still has a very definite size proporiton to its mass based on escape velocity. You cannot escape that as a fact. So please do not say ‘we do not know’ as it is blatant confuscation.
Yes I knew I was not finished. First, very important, I do not “believe” that a mBH traversing a white dwarf cannot be captured, we all “know” it can’t from phenomenology. So this is a constraint that we must take into account.
Any “estimate” of black hole size (like the number indicated to you by CERN) is absolute nonsense. We must take the few things that are known for sure and work forwards from there.
We know that white dwarfs are not being eaten (to a large percentage at least) over very large times. So this allows us to say something about the size, both of potentially existing mBHs, and of quarks which is likewise unknown (although it is finite as we saw).
Neutrinos could help, but unfortunately we do know virtually nothing about them. They very rarely collide with quarks. A star a light year thick would be needed to stop them, the standard saying goes. Since they are uncharged, they can potentially pass right through a quark. So the quarks might be larger than the neutrino observations would suggest.
But black holes also are uncharged. We cannot exclude that they, too, are smaller than quarks. Still one would guess that one passing through a quark would manage to bind and catch it by means of its gravity. So probably quarks are not larger than mBHs. Presumably, they are smaller. But then, why do mBHs (supposed they exist) pass through white dwarfs unimpressed (as we must assume given the mentioned fact of white star resilience)?
It means that both particles must be quite small indeed.
You could say that therefore it might just as well be the case that a thousand neutron stars lying in a row would still not brake an mBH. But this is unlikely. For we have this result that with a probability of 6 percent the mBHs live in the first — largest-size — bracket of 6 allowed equiprobable mass windows, of which only the lowest is dangerous owing to the “low” energies of CERN.
.
So it must be quite serendipitous that mBHs (a) do occur easily and (b) nevertheless do not yet get braked by white dwarfs so as to stay inside. Other authors do perhaps not know that mBHs must be fairly large to be generatable by the LHC. So our finding that they do pass through white dwarfs even though being fairly large implies that the survival of white dwarfs is a fairly precarious business. And hence it constitutes a very valuable piece of information for humankind (as you emphasized).
Does this second part of my ongoing attempt to answer your first — still not quite reached — question cause any problems so far?
A dialogue is always unpredictable, and leads both partners invariably into new territory. Therefore I maximally appreciate your challenging me.
P.S. An aside: There are three learned enthusiastic texts about the LHC in the April issue of the “Physik-Journal” that is read by virtually all German physicists. I mention it here only because the word “black hole” is not mentioned even once. This proves to the eye that CERN is far from being certain about their stance on the issue; otherwise this austrich policy would not be necessary. The planet can see that they are lying-and-hoping that the gods be on their side. We live in a pre-scientific era again. But with the weapons of science lying around like the splinter bombs from the last wars — meant to kill children. (Forgive me: I still have in the back of my mind that the LHC was re-started in earnest only today. This is not polemics, this is only holy anger.)
(I would be their best friend if they helped me defuse the danger. No one loves their experiment more than me — but only once the proofs of danger lying on the table have been addressed and — in at least one instance — dismantled. Maybe you can save them bydismantling my arguments at a point where I would have never expected it.)
Oh yes, Rössler, the fact that much denser and gravitaionally stromnger bodies are not eaten ist of course not an argument that there is in fact no danger but the opposite. :D
Otto — another confuscation on your part. We do not all ‘know’ this from phenomenology. If a white dwarf is proved capable of capturing such hypothetical stable MBH — and I believe it most certainly would be — then it would disprove the existance of such hypothetical stable MBH — and that is by your own logic. In this case, by your own logic, this same phenomenolgy therefore disproves Telemach. That is, unless you can prove that such hypothetic stable MBH always evade gravity caputre traversing white dwarfs…
Quote: “If a white dwarf is proved capable of capturing such hypothetical stable MBH — and I believe it most certainly would be — then it would disprove the existance of such hypothetical stable MBH”
I agree. Please, provide the proof.
It is my understanding that the G&M report already provides such a proof. Please point out the weakness you see in this and we can discuss…
Do you really think Otto is able to do this? He still thinks that GM are operating with linear growth models and so on — I am quite sure he never took a deeper look into the paper.
Dear Tom: By “such a proof” you apprently mean “such a disproof.“
Can you specify?
No Otto — It is my understanding that the G&M report already provides such a proof of safety. You have agreed that if a white dwarf proved capable of capturing such hypothetical stable MBH — then it would disprove the existance of such hypothetical stable MBH at accretion rates that you suggest and/or Telemach. Please review the section in G&M and highlight the weakness in it for us to discuss…
Dear Tom: As you know I described living proof why G&M are fraudulent scientists and hence must not be studied without a compelling reason. So please, spare me getting infected by the sweet poison they propagate in place of science, by your kindly telling me which page you have in mind. I am subjectively sure I know why they are wrong in this context, too, but it would help if the point could be made to our readers, in case I am indeed right.
I promise that if your suspicion proves correct, I shall apologize to you as well as to them and to the whole planet for having made such a circus in the absence of anyone telling me that here the solution was described in 2008 already. Including a heartfelt apology to G&M.
G&M are fraudulent scientists?
You are sick, Roessler. :-)
They do not contradict to the reproach of having committed a fraud by withholding crucial safety information sent to them in time in both preprint and reprint form. But as I said, I give them every chance to be rehabilitated. And myself every chance to be recognized as the stupid person that I always was. For science is based on honesty and admitted weakness, nothing else.
Of course they do not contradict such ridiculous allegations. Since they come from a notorious wackaloon, why would they bother?
BTW, lest you weasel out of this again: stopping bounds for cosmic ray generated black holes are given in sec 5.3.2 of G&M, which concludes on top of page 38 of the arxiv version.
They do not contradict to the reproach of having committed a fraud?
Why should they do so? Just to conterstrike a sick old crackpot? :-)
Otto — the official G&M position was that their 2008 paper already disproved your concern. They have stated this on a number of occasions. Please review over section 6.2 on production rates page 39–40 of section 6 on black hole production on white dwarfs, and highlight the weakness you see in it for us to discuss…. It is just two pages. Also then refer back to section 5.3 Stopping in white dwarfs and 5.3.2 Stopping bounds.
Tom (quote): “They have stated this on a number of occasions”:
But not in a publication, or did they?
The reference you give is to a paper which was “revised onSeptember 23, 2008″, several months after my two 2008 papers.
And their paper on the pages named uses different-dimensional assumptions about a certain version of string theory.
These versions are pure fiction (no matter how ingenious). This is like making exact predictions out of a digital theory of the cosmos.
Such things are absolutely allowed to do in theoretical physics. But only as speculation, not as empirically relevant physics.
In contrast, my unchargedness result of black holes implies as a certain implication that micro black holes can exist. Which Giddings and Mangano cannot and do not say. And it says that no one knows what size they wiill have (hence my 1/16 probability of their being formed).
Giddings and Mangano never ontradicted me and cannot contradict me.
If someone can contradict me, it is you. Please, do.
the official G&M position was that their 2008 paper already disproved your concern.?
The scientific community disproved Roessler in some exclusive statements. It’s not necessary to repeat this again and again. Roessler will ignore that until the end of his life. His medial existence depends on this dissent. So, who cares? You?
Roessler, no one ist reliant on your lies but you. You were disproved in 2008. There’s is nothing new in your crackpot drafts, pubkished by your crackpot friends like El Naschie. You are not even capable to reproduce the maths, your graduate students formulated for you in your first chaos paper, violating Einstein’s GRT.
Otto — yes not in any publication, as your concerns did not require new debate. It was pre-refuted. If you have some misunderstanding that the size of an MBH event horizon is not known, please apply E=Mc^2 and the eq for escape velocity at r the distance from the centre of gravity, and apply it to hypothetical TeV black holes… you will find that the size of a TeV-scale MBH is very preciese and known.… please give up on all the confuscations.
The neologism of “pre-refutation” is the most important fruit so far of this blog. It will make history. It is good to have so powerful adversaries. This is all a scientist ever hopes for.
lablabla. It is very intersting to see how Otto tries to evade reading the GM paper or pointing out specifically where the statements made there are wrong.
He obviously never read the paper. Or he never understood it. However, to comment on the paper purely with psychological bullshit and ad hominem attacks (or character assassination) against Giddings & Mangano reveals Otto again as a selfish egomaniac scaremongerer, a crackpot with s atrong focus on setting himself up a stage for his personal crusade agains science and reason.
Anyone who calls CERN’s crime by its name is called names by CERN-paid “scientists” who dare not even show their face.
Poor CERN — please return to science and apoplogize. Science once was your identity.
Blabla, poor Otto. Instead of insulting scientists you should prove your claims. Point out the flaws of the GM paper by quoting the exact page, equation and so on.
Nothing else is required here. You can continue shouting about “crimes” and “fraud” around but this behavior only reveals the weakness of your case. Accusations have to be proven — you have proven absolutely nothing. In contrast you avoid anything like that. :D
Eq. took recourse to character assassination in response to a post published briefly but remove on his request from Lifeboat.
It is heartening to see how the CERN mafia is beginning to panic since only by shying the light can CERN still be protected from being recognized in its life-threatening character on a planet that has acquired a minimum of environmental consciousness.
I appeal to friends in Japan not to tolerate being cut-off from potentially life-saving information from this portal.
Again psychological babla, Rössler. So the same answer as yesterday applies again:
Blabla, poor Otto. Instead of insulting scientists you should prove your claims. Point out the flaws of the GM paper by quoting the exact page, equation and so on.
Nothing else is required here. You can continue shouting about “crimes” and “fraud” around but this behavior only reveals the weakness of your case. Accusations have to be proven — you have proven absolutely nothing. In contrast you avoid anything like that. :D
The long Otto-silence again :D
It is sweet that the Golm kids try to be back despite being unable to provide a counter-theorem to Telemach.
I offer the simpler field of cryodynamics as an area where they could show their competence in promoting science in a less bloody context than that of earth evaporation: Pure progress in a nothing-but-happy new synthesis.
Again psychological bablabla, Rössler. So the same answer as yesterday applies again:
Blabla, poor Otto. Instead of insulting scientists you should prove your claims. Point out the flaws of the GM paper by quoting the exact page, equation and so on.
Nothing else is required here. You can continue shouting about “crimes” and “fraud” around but this behavior only reveals the weakness of your case. Accusations have to be proven — you have proven absolutely nothing. In contrast you avoid anything like that. :D
Stop talking nonsense and start doing science.
Anonymous hate instead of an answer to the question posed to him: Poor Lifeboat.
Hate? Where is hate?
Thats new to me that insisting on science is called “hate” today.
Otto,
instead of insulting scientists you should prove your claims. Point out the flaws of the GM paper by quoting the exact page, equation and so on.
Nothing else is required here. You can continue shouting about “crimes” and “fraud” around but this behavior only reveals the weakness of your case. Accusations have to be proven — you have proven absolutely nothing. In contrast you avoid anything like that. :D
Stop talking nonsense and start doing science.
Additional question: show us the exact page and equation where G&M assume only linear growth…you stated that quite often, prove it.
No substantial defense provided:
against the historical evidence given on “Lifeboat” above that Giddings and Mangano pretended in their paper on the quoted two pages that string theory had any physically defensible quantitative predictions to make about the size of mini black holes.
And against the fact that they refused to quote the evidence given to them beforehand that all we can know physically about string theory so far is that electrons are not point-shaped but have a — so far inexplicable — finite size. This fact should have made them happy since no other physical proof for the existence of sub-Planckian black holes was ever provided. A “very general” form of string theory therefore has physical reality — a revolution in physics.
As fortunate this revolutionary fact is for string theory, it unfortunately does not so far allow us to make any quantitative predictions as to the minimum black hole diameter. The 6 percent probability of Armageddon being induced by CERN therefore stand undisputed.
G&M’s silence for more than 4 years is the saddest fact in the history of physics. They are kindly asked to reply and explain this planet-startling fact. Maybe they had a good reason for staying silent after all? In this case they are kindly requested to come forward to explain.
I apologize in that case for having been unable to see their good reason up until now — which no one hopes for more dearly than I do.
Again only strawmen arguments wihtout any kind of hard evidence supporing it.
So again, Otto:
Point out the flaws of the GM paper by quoting the exact page, equation and so on.
Nothing else is required here.
And:
show us the exact page and equation where G&M assume only linear growth…you stated that quite often, prove it!
The only silence for years was and is your amazing silence.
I quoted the page numbers above. Please, look this up. Otherwise I shall do so for youif it is still there.
Second: they do not show an exactly linear growth — they only show sub-exponential (which you can call “qualitatively linear” by comparison) growth: namely, one that takes billions of years instead of about 5 years until the earth is eaten inside out (as my own exponential growth law predicts). If you insist, I apologize for having called the more or less linear growth they assume “linear” without having added the qualifying words “by comparison.”
Maybe you have a still better argument to offer in defense of G&M?
Are you kidding, Otto?
We still can not find anything like a scientific review of the G&M paper from you.
Quoting again the ridiculous “Telemach”-pseudoresult does not replace something like that.
Your comment on the growth is simply ridiculous. Show the equation, show the flaw, show the false assumption and, do not forget that point, present a better solution worked out mathematically as it is common in physics.
So, will you start to behave like a scientist or do you want to delude the public again?
Why the vicious tone? Anonymous barkers bore readers if they cannot provide what they are kindly asked to provide.
Good bye, eq
Otto, nice try. You try again to replace science with psychology…as mentioned, nice try.
Again:
Your comment on the growth is simply ridiculous. Show the equation, show the flaw, show the false assumption and, do not forget that point, present a better solution worked out mathematically as it is common in physics.
If you can not write at least a few lines hard science it would be timefor you to say good bye, Otto :D
Otto, time is going bye. Instead of pussyfoot around tell us what’s wrong with G&M. In a scientific manner. Your aren’t able to publish new hate comments on lifeboat. So, what do you expect to achieve by maintaining non-co-operation?
The alleged “William Kilgore” who appears repetitively on this blog and who accepted my responses to him in previous exchanges as if he were the real scientist is an impostor who misuses the name of a real scientist working at a venerated institution in the U.S. So I was informed by a person in contact with the real scientist.
So I kindly ask the impostor to first show his credentials before joining in the recognizably ill-meaning chorus of employees of the German Golm institute.
The real William Kilgore would be a hero if he appeared here, since no scientist of a CERN-related institution on the planet dares say a single word against my published results (especially Telemach). This is the sine-qua-non why CERN can continue in the open. But the press of the planet for some reason prefers to close its eyes to this plein fact.
appeared
Again otto tries to avoid any scientific statement by evading on personal grounds and psychological bullshit and character assassination, of course.
BTW: You are the last person on earth calling other people “impostors”, Otto.
BTW: You are the last person on earth who is allowed to call other people “impostors”, Otto.
Otto, i am William Kilgore, working at French Guiana and the U.S.
Other delusions of lunacy are on your side. Beside that. Don’t hesitate to name the mistakes in G&M. In a scientific manner.
But you are not the the famous American physicist of the same name whom you pretend to represent. One lie is one lie too many.
otto, “the world” is waiting. No one is interested in matters like whether Kilogore is THAT Kilgore, or another Kilgore.
What matters is the last comment of Kilgore:
Otto,
“tell us what’s wrong with G&M. In a scientific manner. Your aren’t able to publish new hate comments on lifeboat. So, what do you expect to achieve by maintaining non-co-operation?”
You are not longer allowed to waste your precious time with the sophisticated task of formulating new postings full of hate against science. You have enough time to do science now. Searching for persons is not required here.
in general it is quite intersting how you evade on other, completely irrelavent fields like the credentials of a person or the employments of commenters and so on. Is there really nothing more important if we take your apparent fear for the planet for seriously for a short moment?
This alone proves already, together with your hateful postings (especially when compared to your quite similar hate-campaign in form of letters to local newspapers etc), that you are not really in a state of fear or something like that. The only thing you really fear is to loose your stage for your personal crusade against science.
Your fear for the planet is a big lie, nothing else. Otherwise you would have written a detailed and scientific public response to GM long ago. Even now you try to avoid anything like that.
So, the only thing that matters here (and I think the administration agrees with that) is the demanded scientifically formulated review of the major flaws in the GM paper. Mathematically.
G&M avoided quoting results that had shown their calculations to be false. They never updated for 4 years. They do not contradict the public accusation of scientific fraud for an equally long time. They are accused before the International Court for Crimes Against Humanity along with the organization that relies on their fraud. And not a single scientist on the planet is defending them.
It is a tragedy that an organization can force scientists to publicly sell their honor. I have much pity and personal sympathy for Giddings and Mangano. Imagine you were in their position!
I am very grateful to these anonymous liars’ (who fear nothing more than that their faces could become known) unwittingly helping expose the fact that G&M committed the worst scientific fraud of history by publicly if anonymously trying to endorse their deed.
Quoting again your nonsense is not a counterargument agsinst GM. The point is that it ws proven several times that your Telemach nonsense and R-nonsense has no relevance for GM at all.
The only person who has to update something is you, Otto. All your complaints about “fraud ” and so on are completely unfounded, you have not shown a single piece of evidence supporting you. To write a scientific review of GM would have been such a piece of evidence. Instead of doing so as any good scientist would have done already you prefer to attack the people on a personal level, writing hate-postings and so on.
To show their equaticaculations ons are false would require to analyze the equations. You have avoided anything like that for years.
BTW, a man who published evidently without any review in fraud journals like the new Naschie-journal of this african journal should generally keep quite about scientific fraud.
To show their equaticaculations on
-> To show their calculations…
(Quote:) “your complaints about ‘fraud’ and so on are completely unfounded”:
I would be so grateful if a single scientist on the whole planet had the courage to say so under his or her own name.
The whole world is waiting for this to happen.
Thank you, dear little eq, for putting this miracle as a dream before everyone’s eyes.
Blabla, Otto. The only reason why you are so focused on identities is that you want to evade any scientific discussion.
The identity of participants in a discussion does not matter. I would say especially in the case of a person like Otto here who needs this unimportant sidelines to evade any scientific discussion.
And now show the flaws of the GM paper by analyzing their equations.
poor little eq
You are mistaken. Your arrogance is probably amusing but can not hide your complete lack of scientific founded arguments.
So again nothing except your usual blabla.
And now show the flaws of the GM paper by analyzing their equations.
Nothing else matters. It is simply astonishing that there are still people believing you as you have shown always the same non-scientific evasive behavior.
“the courage to say so under his or her own name.”
Why make a big deal about the name people post under when we don’t know if it’s their true name anyway. When I type in Bill Johnson how do you know I’m not using my boyfriends name or just a randomly picked name to use? In short it’s not a good issue to try to center the discussion on better to stick with addressing the point that many posters here have focused on.
Dear Bill:
I did focus on this point.
They asked I should show Giddings and Mangano betrayed science and the planet.
I showed this by pointing to my mid-2008-publications which they ignored claiming the opposite to what had been shown them, while keeping the fact that they knew there were opposite claims a secret in their publication even if one grants them that they were unable to judge the merit of these claims as they could in principle adduce in their own defense if they wanted.
When it is a matter of life and death — even for only a single person or a few people -, ignoring evidence of danger, no matter how small, is unethical and forbidden by law. This is why these colleagues are accused before the ICCAH. The fact that this court — along with the planet’s media — is behaving as if bribed by CERN does not change the rules of a decent living-together in a small community or a whole country or in the present case, a whole planet.
But thank you for having asked and kept the discussion going.
Maybe Giddings and Mangano realize that it would be about time to start defending themselves. After all, it is the good name of one of the biggest science institutions and a whole continent that is at stake.
It is not an everyday business that someone succeeds in endangering a whole planet. In this sense, Giddings and Mangano indubitably are “great men.” A whole planet is waiting for their making their first appearance after going into hiding almost 4 years ago.
They carry the responsibility for CERN’s having ignited its doomsday machine again this year. They are CERN’s selfless heros and the planets biggest menace ever.
Please, tell me if you disagree, no matter whether you really are the Bill I have in mind or not. Thank you. Otto
No, you have shown nothing. There is still nothing from you which could be called scientific which would prove anything about GM.
You have to discuss their paper. ou have to analyze their equations, their models, their assumptions quoting page, equation etc. Your so-called publicatons show nothing concerning GM — and that was shown to you just a few days before in this thread and many times before. From your answers one can only assume that you have not even read the paper carefully enough to grasp the structure and kind of the argumentation presented there.
It is strange to see how desperataly you try to avoid any clear scientific review of the paper by focusing on unimportant issues like the names of the people commenting here…
GM have not start to defend themsevels as you have not even started to attack them.
(I should add, of course you have attacked them. On a personal level calling them fraudulent scientists — without ever proving that. That they have not quoted your pseudoscience which you have “published” in evidently fraudulent journals edited by fraudulent scientists like El-Naschie is nt scientific fraud. That you have not understood why your work is in fact irrelevant to their paper, is not scientific fraud — it is simply your personal problem)
And please stop talking about dangers for the earth because you have shown at least in this blog section that you don’t care for the planet. Otherwise you would have written a scientific response to GM long ago instead of wasting your time with Nazii, genocide, child murder and other accusations against CERN.
Name-calling by anonymous detractors is a push rather than a hindrance to a good cause.
If you see someonne trying to kill a child, you have not only the right but the duty to use means like “name-calling” (and even stronger means), I happen to be believe in my unlimited stupidity.
No one is trtrying to kill a child — and to accuse persons or a group of persons to do so is defamation, nothing else.
You show again that there is in reallty only one field where you are a real expert with a great knowlegde — defamation in the form of comparisons with Nazis, accusations of child murder and so on.
When it comes to science, you fall silent. Very interesting.
The anonymous kids must wait until the only man — with a name to him — has replied.
This silence when it comes to science was already seen in the 90s when you were not able to give an introductory course in chemistry to medicine students. It is important to note that you are a medical doctor and were holding a chair in theoretical bioCHEMISTRY (with publications about chemical kinetics according to your records) at that time. In the following events you accused also the university in Tübingen of being a “pogrom universität”, you compared the universitiy with Nazis and so on. The reader probably will see some similarities with Ottos actual behavior. Probably he can draw some conclusions from that.
And now it is time for Otto to show the world first time that he is not a egomaniac crackpt but a serious scientist who can analyse and review in a scientific manner a paper published in the field he claims to be an expert in. Come on Otto, the “world audience” is waiting.
At some point it becomes boring that all you can say is something about the anonymity of other persons.
Fortunately the people can think themselves and are able to draw some conclusions from this avasive behavior. They probably cn also judge this in the context of Rösslers claims to be worried about the planet. A really worried person would propbably act totally different.
Why are lies needed in your opinion, kid? But ket us first wait if Bill comes back?
Come on Rössler, start doing science.
Or do you want to say to the world that you can not understand the equations?
Mr. Rossler, you said “They asked I should show Giddings and Mangano betrayed science and the planet.”
The problem is this is not what they asked at all. It’s the question you are answering but it not the question that was asked.
The question you are addressing is whether the paper should be addressed or not, while the question that has been asked of you is if you can provide an analysis of the paper itself and the arguments made within. This would entail not criticizing the action of the authors and what outside research they didn’t include but rather looking at their data, their equations, and their models and citing the specific argument and saying what is wrong with it.
“must wait until the only man — with a name to him — has replied.”
Assuming of course that I am a man. :)
Correction, Mr. Johnson: Rössler should proof his accusations of fraudulent science. The only way to do this would be to write this scientific review of the GM paper and to analyze the flaws therein.
It was also shown long ago that Rösslers so called publications are not even relevant for GM — and up to now he never showed a reasonable argument in a scientific precise form why they should be relevant.
OMG, proof — prove
And now we are again waiting for the great scientific answer of Otto Rössler to Giddings&Mangano.
This Bill Johnson behaves as if he were a member of the evil gang himself, with the same heinous superiority symbol at the end which betrays his fear.
Nevertheless he is more intelligent but makes the mistake of allowing it to become more evident by his own questions what Giddings and Mangano did.
The question reads (quote) “but rather looking at their data, their equations, and their models and citing the specific argument and saying what is wrong with it.”
They claim they can calculate the growth rate of black holes inside earth. And do so with quite learned-looking equations which I had shown in my papers before were inapplicable since mini black holes inside matter form “mini quasars” — a quite intuitive notion which no one who saw the papers can forget. And which proves exponential growth rather than essentially linear (non-exponential) growth as claimed to be correct by Giddings and Mangano with learned-appearing but misleading equations.
It is their not quoting the fact that they are hiding a tremendous danger from the world if another theory left unmentioned by them holds any water (so that that theory needs to be falsified before they can go on) which is what can and must be called a crime in view on what depends on what they did. It is, of course, just dogmatism (cloaked into equations) which they presented. Absolutely normal if you are absolutely sure that any scientist not belonging to CERN is an idiot.
Like Mr. Zimmerman knowing a black kid is a murderer. But if you behave like this, you must face justice. This is all I am asking. And I am asking this also in the name of the young kid who was killed by a person who likewise knew exactly how superior he is. I know Mr. Zimmerman will apologize. I know Mr. Giddings and Mr. Mangano will apologize.
But I am falling on my knees to ask them to apologize immediately — before it is too late for everyone. They are CERN. And the fate of the planet lies in CERN’s hands.
Thank you whoever you are, Mr. Johnson, for having insisted.
Sincelrely yours,
Otto E. Rössler
“And do so with quite learned-looking equations which I had shown in my papers before were inapplicable”
Oh, Otto, you have shown exactly nothing about their equtions. There is not a single line on the web or published elsewhere where you really analyize the quoted equations from GM in a scientific manner and present your alternative equations with detailed reasoning why they should be the better model…instead you are the one who demands blind believe into your statements. That is not science, that is pure dogmatism. While GM have expressed everything in clear and precise equations that can be refuted in principle, you are hiding behind a cloud of buzzwords, prosa — everything not even consistent.
There is not even a equation for your so called miniquasar — so far the world has seen just prosaic clouds. BTW,
You claim again the linear growth which is in fact a pure lie as GM are certainly not calculating with linear growth. If you would really have worked on their paper you should have known that. Your so called exponentioal model is not even a model, its merely a naive fallacy.
What you present in your last comment is again only personal defamation without any evidence.
“quite learned-looking equations”
Thanks for admitting that you still have no clue about the equations. Othewise you wold have shown the world why the equations are only “learned-looking”.…
@ Tom Kerwick
Could you tell the world, who’s responsible for a crackpot like Otto E. Rössler is able to pile such a lot of bullshit?
@ Tom Kerwick
On El Naschie Watch you told Jason kicking Roessler out of Lifeboat is beyond your rank. So who has the rank to do so? Who was responsible for this crackpot blogging on lifeboat?
If Rössler cannot manage to write something scientific founded he should simply be kicked out of this blog. There should be no place for his hateful personal defamating postings any longer if he can not deliver supporting evidence at least on the same level as the accused scientists (iwhich means in the form mathematical precise analysis of the paper written by the offended scientists).
“This Bill Johnson behaves as if he were a member of the evil gang himself, with the same heinous superiority symbol at the end which betrays his fear.” Is that what that is, funny I thought that was a smiley face that I included because I was obviously joking about the “if I really am a man” bit. Who knew it was a heinous symbol.
Oh and this Bill Johnson? Unless I unknowingly have multiple personalities there is only one of me here so need for the “this” at the beginning of your sentence.
Now it again appears that your response to the work in question again hinges on the fact that they didn’t quote your work. Setting aside the fact that they didn’t quote your work for a moment is there anything else about their work itself that is wrong, that is errors that could be found by an analysis of the GM paper?
Comparing soi disant “quite learned-looking equations” with the racist bullets of George Zimmerman is another flatline attack on honorable scientists that counts to the record of lifeboats failure.
Thats the great scientist. First he says nothing, then he compares other scientists with murderers.
I have to admit this argumention is highly convincing.
Mr Goos — http://www.lifeboat.com/ex/staff Mr Rossler, my good friend — please discuss the G&M safety argument on white dwarf — it is central to the safety assurance. The relevant pages have been already cited for you as requested — ref sec 5.3.2 & sec 6.2.
Not a single voice discusses what I said.
Only clairvoyant people left on our planet? Even Trayvon Martin’s death is being belittled if everyone says the fact that G&M refuse for 4 years every attempt at dismantling the danger shown to be implicit in their company’s public actions is both forgivable and rational.
You see: Anyone who says “I find not checking a proof of danger reasonable” is someone who cannot again appear in a blog discussion.
“is reasonable” I meant — sorry.
You see: Anyone who says “I find not checking a proof of danger reasonable” is someone who cannot again appear in a blog discussion.
Otto — you agreed in previous comment that if a white dwarf is proved capable of capturing such hypothetical stable MBH — then it would disprove the existence of such hypothetical stable MBH — based on your accretion estimates. The G&M paper calculates capture rates of such — ref sec 5.3.2 & sec 6.2. Therefore if you cannot find a weakness in their calculations — you should conclude such MBH cannot exist…
Older comments http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/03/let-me-also-say-a-good-word-about-cerns-homegrown-old-safety-report/comment-page-2
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/03/let-me-also-say-a-good-word-about-cerns-homegrown-old-safety-report/comment-page-1
Again nothing from Otto. He does obviously not knwo anything about the equations in the paper but he knows without any doubt that they must be wrong. He has not even grasped the line of argumention in the paper but he again knows that it must be wrong.
The only “argument” again is the confirmation of his comparison of CERN scientists with a child murderer. Shame on you, Otto!
The point is that refusing to check the GM paper carefully and to present a scientific sound analysis of their equations, assumptions and to wriote this infame comparisons instead of doing the analysis should be enough reason to remove this non-scientific “moral impostor” from lifeboat. This avoidance of Rössler even to try to convince the community is a watertight proof that he is not really worried about the planet abuses this blog for his cursade against scientists but not for helping the world.
Dear Tom:
I told you already on this blog that these “calculations” are witchcraft. They use formulas taken out of a hat. Please, stop believing in what physicists tell you without checking what they say.
No honest physicist knows anything about the size or other properties of “strings” as they are being assumed without any justification by G&M in their beautiful equations.
G&M put the whole field of string theory into discredit. You may have realized that all string theorists have disappeared from visibility as a consequence of the LHC — more precisely, its behavior of taking string theory hostage.
The string theorists’ silence is as appalling as that of the rest of the scientific community which behaves like a witchcraft community – were there not the almost uncountably many good scientists left on the planet who are no longer allowed to be seen by the media and the bribing institutions behind them like CERN – who are now openly threatening to take over Lifeboat.
This is a very dangerous water in which you are swimming,
dear brother Tom
eq interloped — as if to better illustrate what I said
“I told you already on this blog that these “calculations” are witchcraft. They use formulas taken out of a hat. ”
Ah. Where have you proven that?
Or should we simply believe? Are you demanding dogmatic believe in your “quite-learned-sounding” words?
So again, PROVE IT! Prove your words with a detailed analysis iof the equations. That would be scientific while your silly evasive behavior is exactly the opposite — dogmatism.
And please stop this psychological blabla about string theorists, dangerous waters and your ridiculous statements on people fallen silent and so on. It was quite amusing before but now it is becoming boring — and it does not replace the careful analysis of the GM paper.
“Please, stop believing in what physicists tell you without checking what they say.”
That is the reason why we are demanding that you prove your statements. No one should believe you without checking what you said. So far we have a clear paper with clear assumtptions and falsifiable equations and lines of reasoning on the one side and diffuse prosaic nonsense without any evidence behind it on the other (your side, Otto).
Little eq does not know that string theory is physically unfounded (except by Telemach’s implication that electrons cannot be point-shaped). So a qualitative confirmation of string theory exists — which fact explains why black holes can indeed be produced at CERN and much more probably so than G&M thought. But endowed with new properties not covered by their bogus calculations left stand for 4 years.
Why G&M refused and refuse communication with their only (qualitative) ally is even harder to understand in this light. The source of the bribe will be found out for sure: hopefully not too late.
“Telemach” implicates nothing, especially not for string theory. It was shown before several times that Telemach is pseudoscientific nonsense — whether you accept that or not does not change this objective truth visible for anyone.
It is furthermore simply nonsense that you try to transform the discussion about GM into a discussion about string theory in order to avoid again the overdue analysis of the GM paper. The point is that GM argument from first principles, not really from string theory.
So again the same asnwer applies here: Prove your statement. So far you have shown not a single line of evidence.
The only way to prove the calculations are bogus is to analyse and discuss them, Rössler.
It seems you are not able to do it, but then automatically thje questions arises who had written the few papers in your record which are not pseudoscience. If you are not familiar with the math in GM it seems quite unlikely that you ever wrote down differential equations on your own.
If one chooses to dismiss the mathematical wizardry of G&M and do some basic calculations ignoring the complexities of quantum theory, one could assume the radius of black hole, r = 2GM/c^(2) = 2GE/c^(4) based on an escape velocity c. Filling in the numbers for a TeV-scale MBH = 2x10^(−19)/c^(4) = 5×10^(−51) meters… far below Planck size, and far below the figure used by LSAG which is of the order of 10^(−34).
As this would impact on the capture rates and accretion rates in WD, it is unfortunate Otto you do not attempt this approach to criticizing CERN rather than the strategy of your latest removed post-rant (thanks EQ for highlighting)…
You know Otto, you could start your own Blogspot or WordPress blog and not have to suffer Tom’s edits. Both your supporters and your detractors would enjoy seeing you unbridled, each for their own reasons. You might get more traffic, too.
If you went the Blogspot route, I could help you with site design. Wouldn’t you like a custom masthead like mine at El Naschie Watch?
Dear Jason:
Thank you for your suggestion. Fleeing is never a good advice, though.
You officially brought up the issue of censorship on Lifeboat. What is your advice? Shall I talk to the administration? To whom should I turn in your view?
Sincerely yours,
Otto
P.S. Let me insert here eq’s most recent comment:
———
Saturday, April 14, 2012 11:49 AM
Dear blog adminsitration, again Otto Rössler tries to evade a discussion of published papers with personal attacks agains scientists using infame metaphors and comparisons (with the name Trayon he again accuses CERN of being child murderers).
I think this proves again that Otto Rössler is not interested in serious discussions of scientific issues concerning planetary survival. Every person really interested in this issue would spend the time in writing a watertight sceitnific review of the papers published by the accused institution in order to convince seroous scientists. Otto Rössler never did something like and prefers to write character assassinating postings like the posting above.
———
I find this a very important point in the history of Lifeboat. The post referred to by anonymous eq (http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/04/how-come-cerns-non-objecting-to-the-worst-accusation-of-history-clears-its-name/comment-page-1#comment-106024 ) was promptly deleted without notice to the author up until now. I do not dare repeat the – in no way offending – text here.
Otto — actually you were emailed at the time the post was removed. The drivel about planet-gate death-drives, planetary-secrets etc was deemed not up to standard. The complaint by EQ further endorsed the opinion that the post was not up to standard.
You behave in a strange, authoritative way here. Not my old Tom. Please, tell me in whose name you are acting in a cruel, unacceptable fashion.
Someone must stand behind you. Please, give the name of the responsible person.
And forgive me that I first replied to Jason before sending off my more detailed letter to you which will come in a minute. And please, how long does the list of removed texts take you to prepare that I kindly asked you for a while ago?
Otto, starting your own blog wouldn’t be fleeing. Tom’s not chasing you out. He’s just insisting your posts adhere to Lifeboat’s standards as he sees them, and that seems reasonable to me. It’s Lifeboat’s site and it’s up to them what gets posted here.
There is no possibility of compromise that will make both you and Lifeboat happy. You had a falling out with a previous host, Achtphasen. Why not make sure it never happens again? When you have your own blog you’re the boss. Call it cernwatch.blogspot.com or telemach.blogspot.com or doomedplanet.blogspot.com or whatever you like. It’s easy to set up with a default template and can be customized as you go.
Both your supporters and your critics want you uncensored. And everyone is unhappy that when Tom deletes a post, all their valuable comments go down a black hole along with it.
When you have your own blog you have, if I may point it out, full editorial control over not only what you post, but what comments you allow! I hesitate to point this out as an advantage, but it’s true. El Naschie Watch doesn’t censor anything except spam, but most bloggers are less permissive.
Question for Tom: Regarding all the deleted posts and their comments, are they recoverable? Or are they gone for good. On my blog I have the option of deleting things permanently or just taking them off-line. Which have you done? Can Otto be given the deleted material so he can host it elsewhere?
Your postings are simply non-scientific agitation. It is more surprising that you were allowed for a long time to post similar agitation against honest people.
Shame on you!
Jason wanted to reply to Otto but it seems he was banned again. Here the banned answer:
Otto, starting your own blog wouldn’t be fleeing. Tom’s not chasing you out. He’s just insisting your posts adhere to Lifeboat’s standards as he sees them, and that seems reasonable to me. It’s Lifeboat’s site and it’s up to them what gets posted there.
There is no possibility of compromise that will make both you and Lifeboat happy. You had a falling out with a previous host, Achtphasen. Why not make sure it never happens again? When you have your own blog you’re the boss. Call it cernwatch.blogspot.com or telemach.blogspot.com or doodmedplanet.blogspot.com or whatever you like. It’s easy to set up with a default template and can be customized as you go.
Both your supporters and your critics want you uncensored. And everyone is unhappy that when Tom deletes a post, all their valuable comments go down a black hole along with it.
When you have your own blog you have, if I may point it out, full editorial control over not only what you post, but what comments you allow! I hesitate to point this out as an advantage, but it’s true. El Naschie Watch doesn’t censor anything except spam, but most bloggers are less permissive.
Question for Tom: Regarding all the deleted posts and their comments, are they recoverable? Or are they gone for good. On my blog I have the option of deleting things permanently or just taking them off-line. Which have you done? Can Otto be given the deleted material so he can host it elsewhere?
http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.de/2012/04/thesis-under-otto-rosslers-supervision.html?showComment=1334429270935#c1451566043343393923
Eq/Jason/Otto — the posts are just taken off-line. Full content can be provided back to Otto to post elsewhere, or reinstated on Lifeboat if all feel it is better to open the flood gates again… I am not under mandate to censor.
I am not under mandate to censor.
The better question is, who is interested in holding Roessler as a member of lifeboat. Who was responsible, that Roessler ever joint this blog?
and, Ms. Goritschnig from Vienna, who is posting aside Roessler on this blog. The last gaga comment on his side LHC-Critique
“Comment from Admin LHC-Kritik
Time April 14, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Article at http://www.CERNtruth.com arguing that an increase of heavy earthquakes during LHC operation is no coincidence. The article states: Just a few days after collision records at CERN, on 11-12th of April 2012, the Earth suffered the highest number of >5 earthquakes events in recorded history. Among the causes suggested is a disturbance of the magnetic field by the LHC or dense objects produced at the LHC (black holes, strangelets) dropping to the Earth’s core and maybe exploding. (At the moment we naturally cannot judge this suggested possibility but we think it should be closely considered.)”
http://lhc-concern.info/?page_id=91
how can an incitement to murder such as the one of ” erwtreg on April 14, 2012 12:57 pm” be allowed on this site? Can anybody dig out the IP address of the poster and save it for future reference?
It shows where Rösslers massive accusations and comparisons with nothing else than genocides, chld murderers and so on can lead. I hope there is no real violent person outside who takes Rössler serious.
All Rössler ever requested was the benefit of the doubt.
CERN refuses to defend itself against proven scientific evidence that it is risking the planet.
I apologize that this doing of CERN’s is considered criminal by humankind throughout its history.
I never asked anything else from CERN than to do its scientific duty and show that the scientific proofs of danger presented and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals are ADDRESSED and refuted.
No one wishes more that CERN can defuse the scientific proof of danger than I do. I am the best ally CERN has on the planet — because I still believe they can return to the rules of science.
Again wrong. There is no proven scientific evidence against CERN — in fact you are actually refusing again in this thread (as many times before) to deliver this evidence.
All your stuff was disproven with counterarguments. you never replied to these arguments. Instead you preferred to talk about psychological deficits of the people or their identities. Everyone can see this even in this thread.
I would bet that none of your last papers was properly peer-reviewed. For example your R-theorem was reviewed by experts years ago and rejected and now it is published essentially unchanged in this El-Naschie-journal. Something like that is called scientific fraud. It is even worse in the case of Telemach where you have simply bought the space in this bogus journal.
Concerning the return to science: Write a review of GM, as demanded before in this thread, and sent it to the journal which has published their paper. You have to analyze and address the exact equations and assumptions pointing out the flaws if present.
The point is up to now you have avoided that. our arguments presented so far against GM as that they were using string theory or linear growth models and so on are unfounded and simply wrong. These “arguments” simply reveal you complete lack of knowledge about the paper — its is even uncertain that you ever read it because otherwise you would not have written such a nonsense.
there is only one person who have to return to the rules of science and this person is you, Rössler.
CERN has lost with its policy of open fraud — or does anyone contradict me?
So the scientific safety conference kindly requested by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011, can start tomorrow.
I expect CERN to say so today and take over the organization. And say a word of thanks to co-organizer Lifeboat.
I had not seen the interloping bad-conscience stricken two texts by good eq.
Ridiculous, Rössler. Sit down and write the scientific review of GM or shut up.
Nothing else is required.
Liars who hide behind a mask should no longer interfere with CERN’s best interests. I expect an answer from Lifeboat: Would it accept an offer of co-operation from CERN, yes or no?
No one is lying except you. There are contrdictions of your bullshit and you tell the world the exact opposite. Thats a lie.
And that is only one example.
It is still interesting that you avade any discussion of the CERN-papers. What you have said about them so far was simply wrong and it seems you never read them at all. So to say that you have disproven them is also a lie because nowhere in the web one can find such a disrpoof from you.
What one indeed can find from you ar countless accusations of child murder, comparisons with Nazis, the genocide stuff and so on. Concerning this agitation you are really an expert. But when it comes to a real scinetific refutation of the CERN arguments there is absolutely nothing except obvious nonsense as Telemach, already reviewed and rejected nonsense like the R and naive fallacies like your ridiculous white dwarf argument above. The base of your case could not be weaker and nevertheless your agitation could not be more massive.
“All Rössler ever requested was the benefit of the doubt.”
No, you’re not going to worm your way out of your responsibility. You called publicly known CERN scientists “worse than Hitler.” You introduced language suggesting the LHC experiments were comparable to a global Holocaust. You were the one claiming that CERN was conspiring to attempt child murder. In other words, you are the originator of the most detestable agitation aimed at stirring up hate against scientists, and, if I’m not mistaken, according to German law you can be hold responsible for any violence this agitation may incite. You should hope that erwtreg was just making a satirical comment to illustrate your idiocy.
In brief, it could be dangerous for real people to publish this agitation of Rössler again in the future. If there will be violence against CERN scientists because of Rösslers propaganda, lifeboat could be in part also responsible for have given him the possibility for publishing his stuff.
TRGM (quote): “You called publicly known CERN scientists ‘worse than Hitler’.”
No, I never did. I always said so under the premise that they continued to refuse dismantling a proof which if correct implies this fact trivially.
As a scientist without a face but with a payroll, you should be able to make this logical distinction.
It is sad for the whole planet to watch how you destroy the good image of science on the planet. Golm has become a Non-place in science unless you apologize — not for the verbiage, but for the illogicity in your appearance here.
If you don’t, CERN will have a weaker stance at the now inescapable joint safety conference with Lifeboat.
eq says in public here that it should be disallowed by law to say that CERN is endangering the planet.
I guess he will agree that holding the joint conference Lifeboat made necessary — by revealing to the planet the fact that CERN indeed has no counterargument to offer to a scientific proof of danger being consciously incurred — is indeed the solution of choice every well-meaning person on the planet requests.
“You called publicly known CERN scientists ‘worse than Hitler’.”
No, I never did. I always said so under the premise that they continued to refuse dismantling a proof which if correct implies this fact trivially.”
LOL, do you really think that any not completely deluded person could not see through this rhetorical trickery? Of course you know that the easiest way to evoke hate against a group of persons is to spread lies that, if they only were correct, trivially imply why this group deserves to be hated. That’s the oldest propaganda trick in history.
Stop playing the idiot, you are hurting CERN, don’t you see that?
Is there not a single friend of your’s at Golm to hold you back? CERN can sue you for ruining their name. You are drawing hate on CERN. Please stop doing so! I am sure they are slowly getting the point.
Please, do not stand in the way of reason, dear TRGM. I still admire you for almost having come around once. No one is better than you: Okay?
Rössler, you big logician!
Why should an ominous “conference” be “the solution”? The rascally scientists would mis-use it for their ends. After that the conference (ennobled by your attendance) is just a figleaf for proceeding with funny earth shrinking.
Do you get the … point?
Maybe it would be better for you to start collecting loo paper rolls instead of agitating. Good for blood pressure too.
Pinky, the gothic “m“ouse
At last a wise advice.
But I know humans a bit better, so I believe, my dear gothic mouse Pinky.
If someone tries to kill them unless a countervoice can be found, they start listening intently with very FINE ears much like yours, only more skeptical still which can be something good:
Skepticism shown towards the oysters-serving lure — or is it a mouse-serving lure in this case?
Take good care,
Otto
Let me elaborate:
CERN Is Conditionally Accused of Being “Worse than Hitler” for Years:
This state of affairs cannot be left unaddressed and hence tolerated any longer.
Only Lifeboat can help CERN out of the impasse. The administration is on their side. So why not take the hand of friendship offered?
After Lifeboat started picking on me and censoring my postings, the point had come to save them from ruin by joining their position – as I did. Now Lifeboat has a live occasion to save CERN.
It would be a great relief to the planet if CERN accepted.
Even those on the planet who never believed in the danger in the first place would breathe more freely again if their reflex-like suspicion were to be confirmed at last. To show this is the aim of the “Joint CERN-Lifeboat Safety Conference,” proposed today.
The Cologne Administrative Court would be maximally pleased, too.
Any objections from any side?
Only serious arguments made by real persons welcome for once. (Forgive us, dear mouse.)
Rossler, did you ever in your lectures advocate violence to “get rid of the insane persons at cern and at mpi golm”, as alleged by “erwtreg on April 14, 2012 12:57 pm”? I would have expected you to react strongly to this slanderous suggestion. Or perhaps the reason why you are not reacting is that the allegation is true?
BTW, it really amazes me that an open incitement to murder is allowed to stand on this blog. Kerwick, won’t you do anything about it?
Rössler, where is your scientific review of GM?
Still trying to evade the discussion ? Do you really think the people are that stupid that they can’t see your efforts to hide your weak case behind your usual propaganda and irrelevant bullshit about anonymity and so on?
Poor Rössler.
Passingby, good point. It is amazing that Rössler does not object to the statements of this erwtreg guy. probably because he knows exactly the violence is indeed the logical conclusion from his agitation.