http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2012/07/2012759585764599.html (at minutes 09:00-10:10, 11:00-12:03, 12:35-13:25, 16:08-17:13) gave me a world-wide forum again. The rest of the media and all colleagues of mine keep their mouths shut.
There is logic behind this schizophrenic world-wide attitude: In case the outlaw is right, one can later always claim that not the whole planet was part of the conspiracy of silence since one high-ranking international outlet reported. However, this strategy is not logical. For if I am right and the worst case materializes, the fig leaf will go under as well.
My class yesterday in which this riddle was touched upon in passing helped me see the mechanism: My results on black holes are too much advanced from the planet-wide accepted lore to be understandable to any colleague.
Imagine the “generic 3-pseudosphere.” Its lower-dimensional analog in ordinary 3-space, the 2-pseudosphere (the so-called Newton pseudosphere) looks like two trumpets with infinitely long, infinitely thinned-out mouth pieces, glued together head-on with their bells ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Pseudosphere.jpg ). This smooth monster has the same volume as a sphere of the same (maximal) diameter, and also the same surface area and the same (if negative) curvature: a kind of miracle. Hence the name “pseudo-sphere.”
By cutting it in the middle to take only one half of it, and then making the trumpet generic by giving it a non-zero asymptotic radius – the Schwarzschild radius – at its infinitely far-away tip (and adding one dimension), you get the correct reality of the space surrounding a black hole. Although there is beautiful related work by Yu Tian at al. ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0411004.pdf ), this is beyond the heads of the whole community. They simply cannot follow.
My late friend Benoit Mandelbrot created a storm with the opposite insight – that there are compact finite volumes with an infinite surface area. In the present dual case, the little ant on the flat outer rim of the trumpet, headed for the middle, cannot believe that the way towards the latter (the so-called “horizon”) is infinitely long. No one saw this before.
But this is “art for art’s sake,” is it not? No: this is physics. And, strangely, the survival of the planet hinges on a single person of public clout believing me.
Thank you, everyone, for kindly having bent your mind.
“this is physics. ”
No, It is definitely not physics as you were told many times before. The choice of coordinatios does not change the physics. You chould have read Nicolai et al, ICH and others more carefully, Crackpot!
There is not a single university chair on general relativity in Germany, but German physicists are allowed to decide upon the fate of the planet based on outdated relativistic dogmatism, as a star reveals.
Sinply calling proven knowledge and experimentally confirmed physics “outdated dogmatism” while your “result” is nothing else than your personal misundertanding of physics is a little bit weak.
In fact it is the typical behavior of an anti-scientist who simply can not accept to be wrong or to be unable to understand something so he declares the contradicting science to be wring or “outdated”. It becomes even worse when considering the fact that the flaws and errors of this “results” were shown many times already, also on this blog.…
It is not science to define the own position to be correct and to ignore the contradictions. This behavior of Otto Rössler is pure pseudo-scientific dogmatism, mixed with obvious elements of megalomania.
Coordinates are made-up things. The physics of the universe didn’t change when René Descartes invented coordinates, nor did they change when Otto Rössler introduced a coordinate transform. However, Otto Rössler never did the heavy lifting to study the physics of space-time in that new coordinate system, and let himself get overly flustered instead of doing the math.
This is a telling flaw in one who seeks to speak to math (with alleged, but undemonstrated, theorems) or physics.
Distant Star and rpenner, please refrain from feeding the trolls.
“My results on black holes are too much advanced from the planet-wide accepted lore to be understandable to any colleague.”
He’s so far behind the pack that he thinks he’s running in first place!
Dear Mr. rPenner — you are very good at reproducing general-relativistic formulas. Maybe you know even how many exact solutions to the Einstein equations exist. But please, use your tremendous technical skills to the advantage of understanding. Geometry is not inferior. And joining forces makes both sides stronger — right?
Lokk at me — I am on television! A vain fascist — what a surprise.
Peter Howell is a Professor of psychiatry, so he claims. We forgive him.
Brandon Larson may well be right (“He’s so far behind the pack that he thinks he’s running in first place!”) I would wish nothing more than that he could substantiate — or someone else would help him.
“I would wish nothing more than that he could substantiate — or someone else would help him.”
I think thousands of reputable physicists have already done that by ignoring this freak.
Roessler is a medical doctor, not a physicist — so we don’t forgive him. Vanity is one of the seven deadly sins.
Brandon: well said! There is not a single physicist suporting Roessler!
Is there no one without prejudices here?
The following text was written for a related blog (but it fits here too, I believe, if I give the link to that blog below):
——————————
Dear Mr. Stone:
Thank you for saying so nicely that you want to learn these matters from scratch. Is it okay with you if I say that Professor Strassler is the best teacher of all these things? Most were touched upon in his texts and Youtube presentations which are unprecedented in their clarity and charm.
What is your own profession? (I am a worker in differential topology, often called “chaos theory.”) It is closely related to differential geometry, the basic science formally presupposed if you want to do space-time theory. Do you have time to learn? My statements made above are comprehensible only if one knows the basic facts of Einstein’s early thinking – which are still bearing unexpected fruit. I found a way to need nothing but the so-called Einstein equivalence principle – which still belongs to special relativity – to substantiate my new results. A more complicated independent derivation, made from general relativity, is due to Professor Richard J. Cook of the Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs whom I quote in my maximally simplified “Telemach” paper.
The paper I mentioned is very accessible – it is almost too simple for the specialists. I give it here again ( http://www.academicjournals.org/ajmcsr/PDF/pdf2012/Feb/9%20Feb/Rossler.pdf ) in case you care to doubt one of the new elements which it contains in spite of its maximized simplicity. And I would very much appreciate it if you could find ways to substantiate this doubt. For, as you will hardly be able to believe, the paper is too difficult to understand for the specialists so far. You may have realized that my colleague, Professor Strassler, already announced his unwillingness to comment.
He is not alone with this. No specialist has so far dared touch on the new results of that sophomore-style paper. For — you will hardly believe this – there is a new superstition in the community: that only by building up further on difficult mathematics is it possible to make progress in general relativity. But the opposite is – of course – the truth.
So it was very helpful that you showed to the world that you believe, like me, that simplicity can harbor infinite complex progress. This actually is the main message of chaos theory for more than a century.
Take care, dear Mr. Stone.
————————–
Original blog:
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/360-2/#comment-13940
(scroll down to Stone Oliver | July 12, 2012 at 11:19 AM )
“Is there no one without prejudices here?”
You and your sock puppets are the only prejudiced ones here. We look at the avilable evidence while you refuse to look past your own nose.
You seem not to know what a proof is, dear Mr. Larson. A proof stays put until someone is able to dismantle it. This has — unfortunately — not happened so far.
If you know better, no one will be more grateful than me.
Obviously you don’t know what a proof is Roessler: it’s only a proof if generally accepted. Your rubbish stuff has never been accepted by anyone else beside yourself.
“Your rubbish stuff has never been accepted by anyone else beside yourself.”
You’re absolutely wrong, Dr. Howell! That great man of science Dr. Mohammed El Naschie has accepted it!
When a infants attains a certain age the course considers the originator an adult. marriage bureau lahore At such an age the generator is considered to be responsible for all lawsuit and decision taken by him/her.
OK, now the spammers are coming. It is the beginning of the end here. In another month the only ones left here will be Otto and his sock puppets arguing with a bunch of viagra salesmen.
“it’s only a proof if generally accepted.”
This is not a statement by a scientist — right?
Brandon: I ask you herewith to apologize. Thank you for this courtesy. Otto
In case you missed it, Brian Cox reenctly let the cat out of the bag: apparently, the LHC will, indeed, . Oh well, small price to pay In any case, they are probably right to not give a firm timetable. If they want it to work, they need to focus on the equipment, not the PR; something they seem to be doing, going by the statement that No press will be invited for these events’.
Thank you for this information.