I feel that this easy-to-verify fact is worth reporting by the media.
I admit I am biased because I found a so far un-refuted proof of a concrete danger of unimaginable proportions. So if I publicly ask CERN to update, everyone can say: “He writes this to get his will at last.”
Therefore I apologize for this partisanship of mine and ask other, less personally engaged persons to ask the neutral question of whether or not it is desirable to have an update on CERN’s safety report from early 2008.
Yes, it should be perceived as a danger of unimaginable proportions and an update is desirable.
How can we help CERN to update?
Whatever a less engaged and mathematically incompetent person could suggest for helping CERN, it might get fail by something like the Ringelmann effect — http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002210317490033X — so I must admit: the more I continue posting in here, the less power for competent theoretical researchers to help.
Thank you for alluding to social psychology: If many people have learned to live with a scandal, it seemingly disappears from reality.
So some way of “shouting” is required.
On the other hand, in the present case the fact that for 4 years CERN has refused to update, is a news that never before arose in a sensitive field. I thought — and still hope — that this is a fact the media cannot ignore once it has been exposed.
You seem to be pessimistic by predicting that even such a fact is subject to the fading effect you refer to?
Sorry, I only tried to refer to my own weakness in here. http://www.change.org/petitions/every-government-on-the-planet-stop-the-lhc-experiment-until-the-proof-of-danger-has-been-refuted — 4 signatures and my Facebook alias still appears as the last. Thank you very much for your kindness, I would not dare to make a prediction.
Kindness is all the planet needs, thank you, dear robo.
“to have an update on CERN’s safety report from early 2008″
To correct you: They published a version 2 in late September 2008, though the updates were minor. They also published a short commentary paper around that same time in response to R.Plaga’s concerns — and so reasonable to expect them to publish a similar short paper commenting on your concerns at least ‘to set the record straight’…
Dear Tom:
Quote: “I don’t believe at this stage anything in their Safety Report has been challenged sufficiently by you to suggest it needs to be updated.”
Nice for the readers to learn about this belief of yours. Please, be so kind to substantiate. There is no greater favor a scientist can do another scientist than to contradict him. But he has to provide the evidence. The fact that ten thousand physicists give the impression that they “don’t believe” me is, unfortunately, no scientific argument in itself. You now kindle the hope that a first member of their circle is strong enough to say why.
Thank you for taking this job on your shoulders. I shall try to make it as easy as I can.
Take care,
Otto
Otto, “Please, be so kind to substantiate.” — I stated this as their safety report already considers the scenario of non-evaporating MBH — your concern.
No, dear Tom, I disproved those statements. They use assumptions from string theory which are based on nothing as I told you before. Why you believe in them I cannot understand. But belief is not enough in physics. Please, be so kind as to give a more compelling reason than a pledge of allegiance. Or can you persuade one of the two authors to answer here? After all, they have no other friends on the planet than you and me: you because they were able to alleviate your early skepticism, me because I am the only one who wishes nothing more than that they could defend their claims.
A much simpler proposal: Find someone on the panet who can disprove Telemach ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/82752272/Rossler-s-Telemach-paper ). Maybe they can? Or maybe they have a good friend who can, like Gerard ‘t Hooft? Or Hawking?
I presume above you refer to the G&M accretion models, which are quite different to your own. The pledge of allegiance — if you must call it that — is as I’ve stated before in the WD safety assurance. WD longevity suggests, that if HR is ineffective, the G&M accretion models are more accurate than yours. We’ve discussed this in depth before.
Dear Tom: You never dismantled my dismantling your calculations — if I remember correctly. (We could re-start.)
However, what counts here is something else:
You seem to defend CERN’s not issuing a new safety report after 4 years. If so, you are the first scientist to do so. It would be very important for CERN to publicize this: There is a single scientist who says we do not need a safety report after 4 years. Forgive me that I am asking you this more general question.
Take care,
Otto
I don’t recall you dismantling anything I calculated — though I’ll decline a restart Otto if you don’t mind — it becomes cyclical. The LSAG and CERN PR are employed to provide a safety assurance. If you read my earlier comment more closely you will see I actually defend a viewpoint that a short paper commenting on your concerns, such as was provided before in response to R.Plaga’s concerns back in late 2008, is well overdue.
Why should Cern waste any time with issuing a statement that says Roessler is all wrong? Every intelligent person knows already.
Peter — because he’s made so much noise about it in the public domain — Most scientists felt R.Plaga was wrong also yet the LSAG published comments in response to set the record straight. If not the LSAG then CERN PR. Social responsibility.
Roessler will of course disprove everything they probably will write. either they are using “old and dogmatic ophysics already proven wrong by his results” (here he uses the Rössler-Dogma, if his “results” deviate from accepted knowledge the accepted knowledge is always wrong) or the people are simply unable to think and cannot see his revolutionary new findings.…Of course, he will never write something like a logical line of reasoning against arguments disproving him, in the end it’s always one of the two or even both “arguments”.
In sciene we call this behavior crackpottery.
It is so interesting that all these self-declared “scientists” feel that the highest good in science is NOT TO disprove an offered proof of danger.
This is a unique phenomenon in history: Not disproving a proof of danger as a moral duty for a planet. It represents a first ktéma eis aeí in the sense of Thucydides already, as a fitting precursor to the hysteria that will follow after it is too late.
Can anyone tell me what is the rationale of not checking an easy-to-check proposal of danger? This has never before occurred in history, so historians and philosophers of science and journalism must be maximally interested by now.
To witness: Even to ask for a safety report after 4 years is being ostracized here as immoral. Or at least as something that the planet’s media must be safeguarded against from taking up.
Roessler, I assume you are talking about yourself, when talking about “self-declared scientists”. In that case I am with you.
CERN’s psychiatrist’s defending CERN’s behavior is his professional duty. So I sympathize with him.
Rössler, a person who never delivered at least one line of logical reasoning precise definitions and without non-sequiturs and is surely not a scientist, he is a crackpot or a scaremongering clown.
This is an appropriate characterization of you, Rössler.
I have already directed Mr. Klien to stop automatic deduction of dues immediately and have recieved no response. I am also waiting for a reversal of the “accidental” double billing of my dues in the past. I refuse to be associated with an organization that gives kooks like Rossler a forum to speak publicly. If you have membership dues automatically deducted, then you need to check your bank statements closely.
While Roessler and Kerwick are making noise, CERM makes science: the Higgs- Boson has been found! Congratulations to the 10,000 real scientists who are working hard at CERN!
So far it is not sure whether the found new particle is really the Higgs — but nevertheless: Congratulations to CERN for this great discovery!
They seem quite certain they have isolated a signature/footprint or whatever you want to call it. I’ve already passed on my congratulations yesterday. :-)
“They use assumptions from string theory”
Really?
So far they assume the existence of additional dimensions but these are prerequisites for the formation of hypothetical mini-black holes anyway. In general they do not use string theory, it does not matter how often you try to throw this smoke grenade into the discussion to hide your complete lack of counterarguments.
But in your case the use of assumptions made in string theory is of course justified, isn’t it? GM are not allowed even to think about additional dimensions but Rössler is? Remember that you need this extradimensions as well if you want to have mbhs to become created…yo far you have not shown a concept of mbh formation without this assumption. (In fact you have shown nothing at all, but that is not really new to the reader being familiar with you for years)
It should be added that extradimensions are not a specialty of stirng theory alone. so if one uses the concepts string theory is not always involved.
So Ottos smoke grenade thrown in order to avoid any deep and serious work on the GM paper failed again.
Does Otto have any comment on the discovery of the Higgs? On El Naschie Watch, the commenter “Shrink” asks. We all want to know.
hdc’s comment is the brightest for once. He sees that the proof implicit inTelemach that “something” increases the size of electrons is decisive. I never said that this must be string theory. But in view of this new fact of nature, all string theorists ought to rejoice. Why they keep silent is a big mystery.
As to the putative Higgs boson, I aleady gave my comment on Aljazeera and Lifeboat. Professor Higgs is one of the very few persons on the panet who could ask for a conditional stop of the LHC until the proof of danger has been refuted. I herewith repeat my humble pledge to him.
There is no proof in telemach and your ontological new fact of nature is in reality your own failure to understand relativity.