Einstein could see through. His most powerful (“happiest”) thought was the equivalence principle. This is the insight that you can equate what happens in ordinary acceleration with gravity. Newton had seen it before, as Thibault Damour found out, but the universal speed of light made it a magic lamp.
The “gravitational clock slowdown” immediately spotted as an implication by Einstein, is the greatest breakthrough in the history of science. It was never given the attention it deserves. 3 corollaries got discovered since. They were not embraced by Einstein at the time out of cautious modesty because quantum mechanics was not yet known in 1907. Einstein’s famous slow-down of photon frequency on the lower floor goes hand in hand with 3 further changes: a proportional reduction in the mass of all locally stationary bodies by virtue of quantum mechanical creation-annihilation; a proportional increase in all local lengths mediated by quantum mechanics; and a proportional reduction in all local charges, covarying with mass. The 4 changes (in T, L, M and Ch) are locally counterfactual. The length change L has the further corollary that the speed of light c becomes globally (and not just locally) constant.
Professor Richard J. Cook of the Air Force Academy arrived at the same results on the basis of Einstein’s later mature theory of general relativity. He saw the further corollary of a locally counterfactual quadratic change in the gravitational constant G. The at first overlooked change in charge was graciously conceded.
These new results have ground-breaking implications (no Ur-meter, no Ur-kilogram, no Ur-charge). Most importantly, they come at a critical moment in history. For their previous lack is responsible for an experiment being carried out in all innocence that with a sizeable probability leads to panbiocide in a few years’ time.
This sounds like bad science fiction. Wolfgang Schauder published such a story three years ago, and so independently did Rolf Froböse after both had learned that black holes possess brand new properties. This is the main message of the “Telemach” (T, L,M, Ch) theorem: Black holes arise more easily, are undetectable at first, and grow exponentially inside earth.
It is embarrassing that the new results mandate that the safety of a currently performed experiment needs to be re-assessed immediately. A crusade on behalf of this is on its way for 4 years. But the physics community keeps the new results under a rug by selective non-quotation (cf. the most recent anonymous Scientific-American online article http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27319/ ).
I apologize for my “hysterical” calling on CERN to, please, stop and admit the scientific “safety conference” first proposed to Shimon Peres 4 years ago and since many times over – even by a court last January. Like me, the young scientists on the planet cannot understand why the scientific community has resolved that nothing is to be feared more than a safety conference. In the worst case, the latter could wreak havoc with the power structure in science: but does this avoided risk justify the other risk of collective extinction? The probability of earth’s being evaporated in a few years’ time could by now have reached 4 percent.
I am a notorious optimist: Thirteen years ago, Israel and Saudi Arabia were close to agreeing on building “Lampsacus hometown of all persons on the Internet.” Ezer Weizmann’s sudden ousting prevented this from materializing. I revive this old hope by calling on the young generation in Egypt: Please, help us all by voting for the safety conference in your upcoming free elections.
This post reads extremely well, in my opinion, so it surely adds to the credibility, prima facie, of Professor Rossler’s case. As Oscar Wilde pointed out, if something is well expressed, that may be all we need to know.
So you think the repeating of disproved nonsense is giving the nonsense more credibility.
So you think that repeating the same nonsense instead of answering to serious disproofs and contradictions is giving the nonsense more credibility.
So you think that repeating the nonsense instead of giving explanations how certain buzzwords (e.g. the Komar mass) are precisely connected to Rösslers “theorem” is giving the nonsense more credibility.
So you think that adding new and again unfounded values for probabilities to the nonsense is increasing the credibilty of the whole case.
So it is proven that the followers have to learn what critical thinking means.
The probabilities are only one example, but a good one, how the followers of Rössler are switching off their thinking completely.
Next month it will be 5%.
The month after 6%.
Then, in a few years time, it will increase perhaps to 200%. :D
The largest estimated risk of an LHC black hole growing on Earth, according to Dr. Rossler’s writings, would be about 16%, to be reached after the machine’s energy and luminosity are increased to its design maximum in 2014 or later.
Incanting variants of the phrase “repeating the same nonsense” is not critical thinking — it’s just name-calling.
The rage against Prof. Rossler for pointing out potential dangers is part of a general phenomenon that Rossler rightly describes as an attitude in the scientific community that “nothing is to be feared more than a safety conference” — or, I would add, an outside multi-disciplinary safety review. The new Technology Review article linked in this post correctly concludes:
“What’s needed, of course, is for the safety of the LHC to be investigated by an independent team of scientists with a strong background in risk analysis but with no professional or financial links to CERN.”
I agree with Anthony that this is an excellent post by Prof. Rossler.
Houston, thanks for admitting that you never had any doubt about Rössler. Thanks for admitting your bind believe in the 16%, without having any derivation.
A critical thinker would ASK for the base of this value. He would insist on some calculations, models or something similar. nothing of this can be found in any Rössler paper. There is NO derivatio of a probability value from parameters like luminosity (ok, there is this comparison with russian roulette wih one bullet — thats the 16%-origin. Really scientific :D) (To be precise, nothing of this scientific stuff can be found in the huge majority of Rösslers papers of the last decades — but thats another topic).
Have to say that it is hard not to agree with Hansel after a couple of thousand Comments on Posts since May by the esteemed Professor Rossler. But the lively Professor has explained this absence of rigor earlier by noting that geniuses of creative pathbreaking thought in these difficult theoretical arenas leave the math till later.
However, as a sideline observer of this debate I would like Professor Rossler to answer the challenge of TRMG and EQ regarding his first equation, and have asked him to do so for the lay public and the media at
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/11/stupi-cern-stupi-europe-stupi-netanjahu-stupi-ahmadinejad/comment-page-1#comment-95206
I am sure that Professor Rossler will do so when he has time.
Anthony, why do you keep obsessing over a tempest in a teacup which has gone on for over 1000 comments?
The T’s are properly viewed as a unit of time, let’s say 1 hour. Theorems are expressed as formulas, and in a formula the symbol on the leftside is normally regarded as having an implicit coefficient of 1. ONE! It is not an X standing for an unknown quantity. We already know the quantity: it’s one! To take the most famous formula: d = r * 2 means that 1 diameter = 2 radii; it does NOT mean that 2 diameters = 1 radius, the same misinterpretation that TRMG gave to Rossler’s formula 1.
Given that T_tail and T_tip both represent one hour of local clock time, and that z = 1, then T_tail = T_tip * (1+z) means that 1 hour shown downstairs corresponds to 2 hours shown upstairs. What could be simpler?
The explanation is that, though seemingly of normal duration, the relative duration of the hour downstairs is twice as long as an hour upstairs. This is not contrary to Einstein, who noted that those downstairs would appear to be moving in slow motion as seen through a telescope by those in the tip of the rocket or by a non-accelerating observer. Slow motion means longer duration.
Robert, your genius is not at issue. But we need the distinguished Professor Rossler to answer the question himself, in order to know that he has the same answer as you have, or some other answer.
By the way, you state ” 1 hour shown downstairs corresponds to 2 hours shown upstairs. What could be simpler?”
Then you state “The explanation is that, though seemingly of normal duration, the relative duration of the hour downstairs is twice as long as an hour upstairs.”
These two statements seem to be at loggerheads.
After sixty years, say, on the cesium atomic clock, who will be white bearded — the astronaut upstairs or the astronaut downstairs?
By your first statement, the man upstairs. The guy upstairs will be in his dotage when the one downstairs will be decades younger in appearance.
By your second statement, the man downstairs. His hours will have taken twice as long to tick by, so he will be whitehaired when the upper man will be still pursuing the female astronaut at full energy.
Or will the limit to the speed of light, and therefore to the acceleration of the rocket, confine the time elapsed to only a few minutes, until the rocket reaches lightspeed and stop accelerating?
So the two astronauts will not visibly differ.
Houston, go back to school and learn what a physical quantitiy is and why units of measurement are not appearing in physical equations.
You and your strange mathematics are not able to repair the wrog equation given by Rössler.
Houston, it is evident that you have not even grasped the meaing of the equation or in general equations in physical theories. It seems that you have not even understood the meaning of the “=”.
To repeat it briefly:
T_down=T_up*X means that if you have measured 1 hour of proper time up there are 1hour*X measured downstairs.
Thats obviously not in agreement with nature and therefore Rössler ist wrong and Houston stupid.
TRMGs has exlained it very simple and patiently.
“d = r * 2 means that 1 diameter = 2 radii”
Oh, exactly, but why are you missing the point when the quantities are proper times? Why are you introducing again some kind of absolte standard time through the backdoor? :D
Hansel proved Einstein wrong with this classic statement:
Quote: “T_down=T_up*X means that if you have measured 1 hour of proper time up there are 1hour*X measured downstairs.
Thats obviously not in agreement with nature and therefore Rössler ist wrong”
Rössler, that was your equation, not Einsteins.
It is your equation Tdown=Tup*X — or are you not able to see this?
You are unable to see that this is Einstein.
Are there more like you? Please, say who they are.
Tdown=Tup*X is NOT Einstein.
You are pouring sand in the eyes of your followers, Otto.That is indeed the opposite of being polite and so on.
Hear, hear!
What a counterargument, Otto!
“Hear hear” in fact is not a part of relativity. It is again your capitulation. Thanks for admitting that you do not know the equations for time dilation or the concept at all. :D
Hansilein, stop pestering.
Again nothing. That is not the style of a scientist, Otto.
You are the one who is not delivering, dear little coward.
We are in the middle of the safety conference. Rössler was so far not able to explain why his equation should be correct when it is obviously NOT.
So far the answers were “you are all malevolent idiots”, “hear hear”, ” stop pestering”. Higly scientific answers as everyone can see immediately.
To ask questions is the foundation of science, Otto, not “pestering”.
Tdown = tup+X — thats your equation, Otto, and as could be seen easily, it is wrong.
So where is your counterproof? Where is the precise connection of your euation to relativity?
correction:
tup*X
The + sign should be a * sign, right?
And why do you think is your not understanding relativity so important to tell the whole world? It is very wise that you hide your face. But then, please, shut up. The world has no time for cowards.
Otto, the equation given by you is wrong. Everyone can see it. You equation leads to more time at the lower clock — and this is clearly not observed in nature.
Physics is btw talking about quantities and relations between quantities — the next thing you have not understood apparently.
The “gravitational clock slowdown” immediately spotted as an implication by Einstein, is the greatest breakthrough in the history of science. It was never given the attention it deserves.
Really? From my perspective, it underlies the standard model of cosmology, not to mention GPS technology, spacecraft navigation etc, etc.
You have made a vague attempt to link GR to quantum mechanics — I can’t see any new findings from what you described.
They were not embraced by Einstein at the time out of cautious modesty because quantum mechanics was not yet known in 1907.
Really?
These are very vague points, dear Steve. What are you up to? Was I too harsh with Hansel in your opinion? I need your advice. Thank you, Otto
In reply to my comment, Hansel gave his usual torrent of insults and then wrote: “T_down=T_up*X means that if you have measured 1 hour of proper time up, there are 1hour*X measured downstairs.”
It’s ironic that there could be such a confusion, reversing the values for up and down, when the location is part of the symbols! While T_up is treated correctly by Hansel (and TRMG) as 1 hour of local time, “T_down” is being treated differently, not as 1 local hour but as an X of unknown quantity to be enumerated by the right side. That would be correct for the type of equations that involve solving for an unknown. However, it’s not the proper interpretation for formulas in general, in which the quantity of the symbol on the left is already defined as 1 unit and unchangeable (except if both sides are likewise changed).
According to a standard math textbook by two Ph.D. professors of mathematics, “In general a formula expresses one quantity in terms of the others; the symbol for the expressed quantity is on the left side with its coefficient and exponent equal to unity” (Kruglak and Moore, p. 118). “Unity” means ONE.
In Rossler’s formula, T_tail and T_tip are different symbols that represent one unit of local clock time, such as 1 hour, but have different lengths of relative duration, due to time distortion. As in most formulas, a smaller number of units means a larger relative length or content.
If z=1, then 1+z = 2; in that case, T_tail and T_tip are just as different in relative content as quarts and pints. The interpretation is the same:
Q = P * 2 means that ONE quart equals 2 pints.
T_tail = T_tip * 2 means that ONE hour in the tail equals 2 hours in the tip.
We could go through dozens of standard formulas to show that they are interpreted this same way, as Rossler intended for his, and that the Hansel & TRMG “X” interpretation would yield false results. In the volume formula, for example, if Q is treated the way as they treated Rossler’s T_tail, then Q = P*2 would be misinterpreted as 2 quarts equalling 1 pint. This is the reduction to absurdity of their relentless error.
Thank you for this thoughtful comment.
If photons which are affected by gravity, has this been looked at. There are examples of the path that light takes is affected by gravity. Then they must have a mass. IE. the gravitational lensing effect and that light can not escape the gravity well of a black hole where x-ray can. That has been observed in Astronomy So the effects of gravity should speed them up or slow them down as they interact with the gravitational fields of stars and planets?
The speeding up and down does not change the speed of light, only the energy, of the involved photons. (This actually is the explanation of the Hubble redshift if some recent findings are not misleading.)
Reverting to the level of ordinary conversation, it again appears that Houston wants to say that the equation Rossler uses as Eq (1) is a statement of what time has elapsed downstairs Td when the time elapsed upstairs is Tu. If it is one hour when Tu is 2 hours, then Td is 1 hour when Tu is 2.
Since this is a formula for finding Tu when you know Td, ie a statement of what Tu is (2 hours) when Td is 1 hour, then the requisite multiplication is what must be stated in any equation or “formula”.
If the time elapsed upstairs Tu is always double the time elapsed downstairs Td, then the equation is Tu=Td*2.
However, the Houston/Rossler equation is T_tail=Ttip*2 ie not Tu=Td*2 but Td=Tu*2 which is incorrect, whether you call it a formula or an equation, and whichever elementary textbook you choose a page 1 out of as a reference.
The correct equation stating the relation between T_tail and T_tip is a reversal of what Houston states and Rossler states.
Houston states “T_tail = T_tip * 2 means that ONE hour in the tail equals 2 hours in the tip.”
In fact this equation means the opposite. It means that 2 hours at the tip equals 1 hour in the tail. 2 hours elapses at the tip for 1 hour at the tail.
How does Houston get a reversed understandng of a simple alebraical quation?
Certainly T_tail Tdown=Tup*X is what Rossler stated. and what Houston keeps trying to explain.
It seems to be that Houston is viewing the equation not as an equation as such but as a formula. It means to him, when T_tail is 1, T_tip is 2.
This fits his statement “T_tail = T_tip * 2 means that ONE hour in the tail equals 2 hours in the tip.”
But if you have equations in a mathematically stated theory of relations between terms and their values, ie a theorem, which is what the Telemach theorem is, I understand, then this relation expressed as an algebraic equation surely remains T_tail*2 =T_tip, and not vice versa.
How Professor Rossler manages to get both versions of this equation to be true is explained in his post at stupi, or the thread at http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/11/stupi-cern-stupi-europe-stupi-netanjahu-stupi-ahmadinejad/comment-page-2#comment-96204.
His final statement was/is as follows:
————————————————————-“
To avoid misunderstandings, I could and as I now see should have added, after the word where, a subphrase:
(where) “T is the temporal wavelength of the light waves emitted by the equal clocks in question and”.
So that the full text now reads:
— — — — — — — –.-
“Einstein first found out — as described — that
T_tail = T_tip *(1+z), (1)
where
!
T is the temporal wavelength of the light waves emitted by the equal clocks in question and
!
z+1 is the local gravitational redshift factor that applies in the Rindler metric (Einstein called it 1+Phi/c^2, Phi being the gravitational potential [7]).
With Einstein’s result put into this simple form, one is immediately led to expect a spatial corollary: If all temporal wavelengths T are increased, the very same thing is bound to hold true for the spatial wavelengths L of the same light waves:
L_tail = L_tip *(1+z), (2)
and so by implication for all local lengths since everything appears normal locally as mentioned. Formally this conclusion follows from the constancy of the speed of light c (since L/T = c implies L = cT for light waves). If T is locally counterfactually increased by Eq.(1) as we saw, L must be equally increased in Eq.(2) if c is constant.”
— — — — — — -.-
With this longer version which totally preserves the intended and – in my view – conveyed meaning, ALL the misunderstandings that arose can be laid to rest. I hope that everyone is happy with this long delivery.“
———————————————————————-
What is the objection to this that remains, if any? Apparently it is that the phrase “temporal wavelength” is not properly defined.
Perhaps Houston or even Professor Rossler will give us a precise definition, to clear up this objection.
Professor Rossler replied on the stupi thread http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/11/stupi-cern-stupi-europe-stupi-netanjahu-stupi-ahmadinejad/comment-page-2#comment-96204
He states:
“Temporal wavelength and temporal period would be synonyms, just as spatial wavelength and spatial period.”
Presumably even “Hansel” is now satisfied and will raise rather larger points of objection if any to Professor Rossler’s major statement, or return to the arms of Gretel, who will undoubtedly (women being far more realistic than men on matters of critical importance to the survival of their children, family, nation, humanity than male physicists, it appears, who are so excited by driving the LHC into unknown realms of primordial reality than they can’t bear the idea of a grownup grabbing the steering wheel and hauling their toddler asses out of the vehicle before it generates strangelets which will take us over the edge more effectively than mBHs, it appears.
By the way Rossler complains again there that he is attacked by a squad of anonomous CERNbots, and it is surely true than civility and hard thinking tend to escape out of the window when people are allowed to remain anonymous. (See letter in the NYTimes today).
Even though it may well be that politics requires them to be discreet if they are DISAGREEING with policy, there doesn’t seem to be any excuse for being anonymous when they are SUPPORTING the cavalier CERN attitude.
It suggests that they really are just undermining Rossler for political and psychological reasons rather than having a genuine discussion designed to elicit the best version of what may be the truth, which is what genuine scientists do.
Surely this is not true? Surely Hansel TRMG etc have only the purest motives?
If they wish us to believe that, however, it is time for them to emerge in public view.
Anthony has pointed out a major distinction in interpretations of Rossler’s formula 1. Can anyone discern what it is? If so, please explain. He wrote:
“Houston states ‘T_tail = T_tip * 2 means that ONE hour in the tail equals 2 hours in the tip.’
“In fact this equation means the opposite. It means that 2 hours at the tip equals 1 hour in the tail. 2 hours elapses at the tip for 1 hour at the tail.”
Er, right. Except for the word order, what’s the difference from what I said? Presumably, Anthony got his terms mixed up. It would seem hard to do so, however, since the locations are in the symbols.
For the record, I do not presume to speak for Rossler, and it’s his formula, not mine. I’ve merely given my interpretation, which is a standard one for formulas (a theorem is expressed in formulas). In support, I quoted a statement from p. 118 — not “page 1″ — of a textbook by two Ph.D. mathematicians. It’s not my “private algebra” but the standard way formulas are conventionally interpreted: that the symbol on the left has an implicit coefficient of 1.
TRMG and Hansel/EQ are to be congratulated for converting Anthony to their fool’s fallacy that “T_tail” is an unknown “x” — even though they view T_tip as a single known unit of time (e.g. 1 hour). Anthony can now join with TRMG and the gang in reinterpreting all the basic formulasj of math and science.
They can start with the best-known formula of all, which has the same format as Rossler’s: d = r * 2. Thanks to TRMG et al., the world can now learn that it really means that 2 diameters equal 1 radius. Progress marches on.
The Lifeboat gremlin at work?
“They can start with the best-known formula of all, which has the same format as Rossler’s: d = r * 2. Thanks to TRMG et al., the world can now learn that it really means that 2 diameters equal 1 radius. Progress marches on.” — Robert Houston.
Where did TRMG say that? I am sure that TRMG and anyone in the world other than Houston would say that it means diameter=2x radius.
Houston quotes yours truly as saying
“Houston states ‘T_tail = T_tip * 2 means that ONE hour in the tail equals 2 hours in the tip.’
“In fact this equation means the opposite. It means that 2 hours at the tip equals 1 hour in the tail. 2 hours elapses at the tip for 1 hour at the tail.””
Sorry. I must have meant that In fact it means that 2 hours at the tail equals 1 hour at the tip, and not vice versa. After all if x=2y, that means 2x=y.
This is the opposite of what the independent and highly original thinker Houston claims.
Lifeboat is a very peculiar site. It seems to have a gremlin which runs riot and prevents one from spelling or formulating the simplest things.
It may be that Houston’s private arithmetic is merely the gremlin at work again, and he means the opposite. Since the opposite is the truth, and Houston is well known for posting correctives ie the truth as opposed to the error of others, this must be the Lifeboat gremlin reversing his stuff just as it reverses mine unless I am careful (and even then).
Is it possible that the Lifeboat gremlin is reversing Rossler’s posts too? This might account for the outrage of Hansel TRMH Passingby et al.
PS May I plead for the use of the proper word “formulae” and not “formulas”, since most people reading and posting here are highly educated and undoubtedly learned Latin in their cradle?
“After all if x=2y, that means 2x=y.” — AL
Good God, the gremlin struck again in the midst of my clarification.
I meant of course “if x=2y, then x/2=y”.
May I again point the world to the magnicent paper by the maverick pupil of edward Teller’s, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0902/0902.2811v1.pdf, which to assault would require much more specialist brain power than has been brought to bear by the anonymous German defense squad of CERN’s up until now?
“Professor Rossler manages to get both versions of this equation to be true”
He did not. Repeating the same vague non–defintion is not an explanation. There is still NO connection of his equation to relativity equations, there is still NO precise definition. In fact there is nothing but sciencey-sounding buzzwords without any deeper meaning. Rössler is a classical crank, not even a sophisticated one.
But thanks for showing again your completely lack of critical thinking abilities.
Rössler,it is well known that there is more than one person on this planet not understanding general relativity. So it is not surprising thatb there is another guy producing the exactly same bullshit as you.
There are more people hich have proven you wrong than Cook and you. So shut up, old crackpit. Thats it.
Shut up yourself, Hansel. Your ill-bred name-calling has no place in any serious discussion above the level of a gutter.
It’s interesting that even this voice of contempt from the pro-collider gang admits that “there is another guy producing exactly the same” findings as Rossler. The “other guy” is a U.S. government physicist, Prof. Richard Cook (Dept. of Physics, U.S. Air Force Academy). Dr. Cook’s paper on “Gravitational Space Dilation,” to which Dr. Rossler linked above, provides independent support for 3/4ths of Rossler’s Telemach theorem (the influence of gravity on time, length and mass). Dr. Cook relates these to the effects of a black hole and even to the precession of the perihelion of planetary orbits, such as Mercury’s (Sec. IV-C).
This important study from a longtime professor of physics essentially corroborates most of Dr. Rossler’s contentions in Telemach and the Gothic-R theorem and provides explanations that, in effect, nullify the criticisms of Prof. Nicolai and others.
Anthony commented above on my simple version of Rossler’s first formula: T_tail = T_tip * 2 (which assumes that z=1, and T = one local hour). He wrote, “it means that 2 hours at the tail equals 1 hour at the tip, and not vice versa. After all if x=2y, that means 2x=y.” That indeed is the illicit maneuver that his interpretation represents: a violation of a rule of transposition in elementary algebra (namely, that a multiplier when transposed to the other side of an equation must be changed to a divisor).
In a later comment, Anthony corrected his error: “I meant of course ‘if x=2y, then x/2=y’.” That’s right, but he failed to go back and apply his correction to the Rossler formula. Applying x/2=y, the formula would become T_tail/2 = T_tip and mean that 1/2 hour in the tail corresponds to 1 hour in the tip, i.e., the same relationship that I stated.
Similarly, if we simplified the symbols to d (for T_down) and r (for T_roof), it would become: d = r * 2 and mean that 1 hour downstairs equals 2 hours at the roof. Of course, the same formula also means that 1 diameter equals 2 radii — and NOT vice versa.
Hoston, you can not do math, and you have no idea about relativity theory or theories in general. We know that.
And now perhaps you can give us the exact derivation of this strange non-defined equation (yes, it is still not defined because repeating disproved bullshit about the length of seconds and so on is not a defintion) directly from Einsteins equation (tdown=tup/(1+z) ). Come on, great mathematiciian :D
It’s already hard enough to get Rossler to formulate coherent statements about his own theories, why would we be so masochist as to discuss with him somebody else’s results? If this Richard J Cook shares Rossler’s planet-annihilation delusions, he should come here and argue in support of his colleague. Perhaps Rossler could invite Cook for a guest post, at least he seems able to express his ideas in mathematical form and to provide definitions of his variables.
From a quick look at the preprint, it seems that Cook tries to select a preferred reference frame by introducing everywhere else a coordinate-dependent rescaling of the metric. He does not make any new prediction, but rather claims that his formalism allows for a simpler (at least in his head) description of the well-known predictions of “traditional” general relativity, such as the precession of the perihelion (note to Houston: stop trying to interpret results more complicated than sums and subtractions, they only make your head hurt ;-)
It would take more time (and yes, a deeper understanding of general relativity than Rossler has shown so far ;-) to decide whether Cook’s article contains any useful result at all. However, what anybody can check is that, despite being on the arXiv for nearly three years, this “important study” has collected exactly ZERO citations, and it has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Clearly, all the specialized referees to which it was submitted found Cook’s article either irrelevant or plain wrong (or both). Perhaps Cook himself could elaborate on this?
“He does not make any new prediction” is the joke of the year.
It is very wise that PassingByAgain uses the metapohor of death to hide his face. Please, re-write your awesome comment before showing up on this blog again, poor deluded fellow.
Quoting from page 17 of Cook’s preprint:
“The two pictures [i.e., “conventional” general relativity and Cook’s “single observer” picture] are physically equivalent and make the same predictions for the result of any measurement”.
Do yourself a favour, shut up and ask Cook to speak for you, at least he can do some maths (but something tells me that he’s not cuckoo enough to come down here… ;-)
at least his paper is of higher quality than Rösslers as it is “published” on arxiv.
“But thanks for showing again your completely lack of critical thinking abilities.” — Hansel.
Hansel, that is not even correct English.
But in answer to what you evidently mean, my lack of quarrel with the esteemed Professor Rossler’s statement shows my unwillingness to contradict his distinguished mind, not any weak analytical abilities, if any.
I am surprised that your own analytical ability is not up to making this important distinction.
Someone has to take a task in hand before you can see whether or not he is up to it. You view this responsibility as your own, full time, it seems, but you have not yet succeeded in exploding Professor Rossler’s position.
If anyone lack the mental equipment to do so, therefore, it would seem to be you, rather than me, since you bravely lob grenades at every turn. with so far no effect. I merely report the state of play from the sidelines. That is the job of a reporter, you should know — to report, rather than to participate.
In fact, owing to lack of time my familiarity with Rossler’s version of the physics of black holes is not up to par in this case so whatever my analytical abilities I prefer to watch your manful if so far unsuccessful efforts to lay a hand on the fast thinking Prof.
Perhaps if you extended your efforts beyond the realm of the easy, schoolyard jeer, and actually analyzed the Telemach theorem to expose any weak points you might care to allege, one could admire your analytical abilities, instead of noting that you usually get your grammar and syntax, let alone spelling, incorrect.
However, I still have faith in your abilities despite all your misstatements because I know from my own experience that it is virtually impossible to post anything on Lifeboat without the resident gremlin making a nonsense out of it.
I ask the same indulgence from you, Hansel.
“Applying x/2=y, the formula would become T_tail/2 = T_tip and mean that 1/2 hour in the tail corresponds to 1 hour in the tip, i.e., the same relationship that I stated.” — Houston
Corresponds. Not equals. The equals sign in an equation would mean that T_tail would be twice as long as T_tip, and therefore the measure would have to be halved to get the corresponding T-tip duration.
You are confusing a formula to work out the correspondence of a with b, and an equation stating their different values at any moment in time.
Anthony, to make it short: the weakness was already analized, Rössler never responded to it properly.
There is in fact nothing like Rössler-black hole physics. There is not even a Rössler-physcis which would deserve such a term. And if Rössler is that “fast thinking” why it was absolutely impossible for him to derive his equation in a aproper way, to connect it to measureable quantities described in Einsteins original equation and so on?
Rössler will never give an answer because he is not even able to explain this ridiculous piece of pseudoscience.
Hansilein: this stuff is both more simple and more complicated than you can understand up until now. What is so amazing is that nobody in the field is able even to understand — not to say disprove — Telemach. Although no one objects that if Telemach is correct in its utmost simplicity, CERN’s continuing for a year was the worst blunder of history. Done out of the familiar German belief in being infallible, Einstein’s nightmare, but this time followed by the whole world.
Instead of trying to insult other people here you should answer the questions which are open for months now.
“Telemach”, to be precise, does not even meet the quality criteria of arxiv. It does not meet any scientific criteria. Normally no one would care about this vague piece of poor reasoning. But some people did and the reactions (or better: the poor non-reactions ) of the author have proven that indeed this piece of (poor) pseudoscience is not worth any further discussion.
So it is up to you. either you will start to behave like a scientist and answer the questions or you will keep on avoiding this answers.
earlier comments here: http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/11/planet-versus-einstein/comment-page-1
Thank you for this good deed, PasserByAgain. Cannot you make a constructive statement till tomorrrow?
The world is waiting for the first constructive statement of Otto Rössler. Passingby had numerous so far — but Rössler, the great man, never responded. Strange :D
I guess we all owe Einstein for the foundation he has laid in different sectors. We have been able to build on few of his inventions and theories.He really was a genius whose inventions have made possible for us to understand many principles or mysteries of earth.
I am on the side of the Bathtub Restoration Manhattan. People who have no name behind their postings claim openly that having no counterproof to a given theorem entitles them to ask pseudoquestions — a new phenomenon in the history of science.
Germany’s contribution to science in the 21st century? (Sorry, but it is so sad. The Nicolai school has deserved better.)
names does not matter. facts do. and the facts here are that you are avoiding to answer serious questions in front of the safety conference.
I am in total support for peace conference.It will enable the scientists to resolve their differences and unite for world peace. I hope that all nations apart from making investments in WMD will urge scientists to make earth a better place for living.
Thank you very much, dear gutter cleaning nj. Weapons of Mass Desctruction are the wrong investment. Even peacefully meant ones like the LHC are — until cleared from the proof of being one.
Thank you for sharing you thoughts about this topic and he really was a genius whose inventions have made possible for us to understand many principles or mysteries of earth.I appropriate him for doing this all.
He devoted his sharper vision to saving lives as best he could.
Today I learned of the following sentence of his:
“Every new order is the first step on the way into a renewed chaos.”