I was asked by a journalist friend to present my “revolutionary” results in a way that every lay person can understand to thereby enable the world’s media – if they so wish – to distribute this information in simpler form.
I first have to say who I am, background-wise. I am a “specialist for non-specialization” in the words of my late Austrian friend Konrad Lorenz, and an “interdisciplinary hybrid” in those of my late American friend Bob Rosen. In other words: I have “no character” (only a nose). A little bit known is my work in chaos theory where I discovered a so-called attractor or “reproducible dynamic phenomenon” which everyone knows from experience (a hoarse voice and an idling motorcycle’s noise being examples). Crying babies can produce “hyperchaos” which got turned into a diagnostic tool in wards for the newborn (by H. Herzel). My “brain equation” is getting some recognition lately. A “smile theory” is my oldest but hardest to understand theory (only children have no difficulty). And my recent “Telemach theorem” – named after Ulysses’ son Telemachus – forms the connection to our frightening topic.
A proven finding – a theorem – is true until a counterargument is found that topples it. The mentioned name has to do with an ancient youth who recognized his long believed-dead father cloaked in a beggar’s garment. At the same time the acronym stands for Time, Length, Mass and Charge (T, L, M, Ch) – four entities that can be measured in everyday life by means of simple devices called clocks and meter sticks and scales and volt meters. You probably already know that there exists no “Ur-Second” in physics (because of Einstein’s work); but an “Ur-Meter” and an “Ur-Kilogram” and a “Universal Unit Charge” are believed to exist and well known to date. The Ur-meter and the Ur-kilogram are actually quite expensive and were hard to arrive at in empirical struggles that took scientists and engineers many decades in a science of its own called Metrology (the science of measurement). Therefore it is of some interest perhaps that young Telemach summarily says that three “Urs” do not exist. The Ur-meter, the Ur-kilogram, the Ur-charge all three are as non-existent as the Ur-Second, dethroned 105 years ago, and the “Ur-Pound,” dethroned almost 350 years ago. The latter was proven to be nonexistent by Isaac Newton, the Ur-Second by Albert Einstein as mentioned.
There must be a cry of excitement owing to the newly eliminated three “Urs” – you might expect. The reality is silence. This is surprising since popular opinion holds that new findings are automatically embraced because new machinery can be built and new money be made. But there are always the old manufacturers as it were. Something radically unexpected is never accepted without delay.
No doubt you are skeptical here: “three major new things and no resonance” is implausible. Could an offered “new science” not be crazy? No one said so up until now — yet hopefully the “counter-reaction” will come soon. For, the present confession is not meant as a strife for scientific recognition with three grand new theorems L, M, Ch as you might expect. On the contrary I do not like these results: I wish them to be proven wrong. The story might therefore interest you. As a normal planetary citizen you have, as AnthonyL showed me, a right to be informed with the utmost patience much more so than I had imagined. I wrongly felt that everyone would understand me if I just made allusions to the relevant scientific catchwords. This was a big mistake and I apologize dor it. Thank you for allowing me to continue.
The key word “LHC” is on line now: the biggest machine of history after the pyramids, the largest concerted endeavor of humanity of the past. It cost about ten billion dollars and like the interior of the pyramids is well protected, located hundreds of feet underground, underneath CERN and adjacent to UNO. Almost no one is afraid of it except me. Of course I am not the only critic, but while the others speak of “possibilities” I speak of “proven probabilities” which is a different matter. Specifically I am saying for 4 years: “You have to stop immediately until your safety has been assessed in a scientific safety conference.” And for a whole year by now, even a court says the same thing – but no one in the public is allowed to know this except the profession of medical laboratory assistants (since a member had filed the suit). This silence has to do with the logic of the media that I have so much difficulty to absorb. I continue to follow the advice of a media man by baring my heart in front of you in the simplest and most honest way: Why should such a beautiful experiment, the most expensive of history, wait a little bit of time until a conference about “mini black holes” has taken place? You guess it: It is because of Telemach. Much like Diogenes in the ton asked Emperor Alexander the Great to go out of his way a bit to let the sunshine reach him? This is bound to be crazy.
At this point my defense speech – in defense of the planet – begins with Telemach in the witness stand. L-M-Ch are the crucial new letters added to Einstein’s T. T means that the Time valid more downstairs in a long vertical rocketship that is in constant acceleration in outer space, is slowed-down compared to the tip. I skip the proportionally enlarged L (for Length) and the proportionally reduced M (fore Mass) here and concentrate on the Ch which stands for Charge. At least this third new claim – that charge is not conserved in nature just as the unit time – is absolutely ridiculous: So almost every physicist must feel after almost two centuries in which science taught that the opposite holds true. And if the tail of Telemach, the Ch, is false, the Large Hadron Collider experiment (LHC) at Geneva is predictably safe from my point of view? Yes.
Are not the well-known textbooks a stronger guarantee than a single guy’s proof — even if the latter is as youthful and old as Telemachus? I admit that this rule ordinarily holds true but, on the other hand, young David, sculptured by Michelangelo, still exhibits proudly his nakedness – and so at this moment does young Telemach.
What he stands up against is a most “noble” mathematical result supported by two centuries. It says in its current physical application that if you have managed to put a given charge (think of an electron) into a bounded surface (a closed sack of any shape), then there is no way to diminish the sack’s attractive power on another sack containing the opposite charge (a positron, say) no matter how you might internally displace the charge in you sack: “The number of field lines leaving the sack is always constant.” Two famous 19th century mathematicians, Gauss and Stokes, guarantee this up to this day in the opinion of the highest-ranking specialists in the field, so I was told by one of them who quoted Robert M. Wald’s masterly book “General Relativity” of 1984 (witness pages 432–434). Gauss’ and Stokes’ result remains very intimidating – but no one can blame them for not yet knowing about black holes.
Black holes thus are the magic word. The name is the brainchild of my late friend John Wheeler (and at the same time that of an ancient farm near Tübingen called “Schwärzloch”). The issue is about “my black holes” versus ”their black holes.” David against Goliath? The new knowledge revealed by Telemach on the one hand and the teaching of the better part of a century on the other are pitted against each other. The Ch of TelemaCh says, applied to black holes, that any charge eaten by a black hole disappears. Therefore if you put a tiny black hole into the above sack along with the charge, Gauss and Stokes remain valid until you bring the charge close to the black hole and even let it fall down towards its surface. Then the sack becomes totally uncharged by virtue of Telemach Gauss and Stokes notwithstanding. Yet so of course only if Telemach is the vigorous youth brought to life in Michelangelo’s David. “David versus Goliath or Telemach versus the suitors at CERN”?
The CERNians by their openly ignoring Telemach insist that Penelope – their beautiful “black-hole factory LHC” as they call her with affection – belongs alone to them as their property. Telemach objects.
The whole world is watching breathlessly? Not at all: The suitors — CERN (forgive me for the indictment before I have clinched the case) — do not want the world to know that they are in trouble. Even the United Nations Security Council – located not far from CERN – stands firm on the suitors’ side. Therefore the media of the planet keep strict silence. The fact that on September 10, 2008, more than 500 international newspapers had reported on my engagement against CERN is forgotten. Fortunately so or unfortunately so?
Suppose Telemach were true – then the miniblack holes hoped to be produced at CERN can, # 1, not even be detected at CERN. And when, # 2, eventually a sufficiently slow specimen is amongst them, as unavoidably occurs in the long run, it will settle down inside planet earth to grow there exponentially as a mini-mini-quasar, putting the planet’s short-term survival to an end through turning it into a 2-cm black hole in a few years’ time. This scenario is “absolute nonsense” as a scientist at CERN said – if Telemach is not true. All I am asking my readers is to find out whether or not the youngster is right. In other words: to put a little bit of time aside so the question can be discussed by the best experts. This is all I ever requested: the benefit of the doubt.
I stumbled across Telemach when I had followed up – more diligently than this had been done before, perhaps – on the 28 years old young Einstein’s “happiest thought” (as he always called it because it was the breakthrough toward his life’s work). It had to do with his stomach of all things (the story is well known among physicists). He was standing in front of the open window in the Swiss patent office in which he was employed, feeling an aching pull from the weight of his stomach after a heavy meal. And for some crazy reason he fleetingly imagined jumping out of the window right away – to experience in his mind’s eye an instant relief imn his stomach. For he realized in a flash that his stomach would cease pulling down on him as soon as he was in free fall. And indeed, anyone in free fall like an astronaut in outer space is weightless with all of his organs as we know today from broadcasts from the International Space Station. In outer space as Einstein knew, the exact laws which apply are the very laws of special relativity discovered by himself two years before. So he realized in a flash that he was empowered to solve the riddle of gravity.
The first thing he found was the “T” of Telemach: that Time and all clocks are slowed down closer to the surface of the earth than farther up – a phenomenon well known from the operation of the GPS system to date. Regarding the other three letters of Telemach, it is easy to see that they could NOT be discovered at the time. But this takes a moment to explain.
Stemming from this happiest thought, the capital T of Telemach is absolutely accepted today. The other three letters – L, M, Ch (if Ch is understood as a single letter like Chi in the Greek alphabet) – are new as mentioned, the last one is barely 5 years old. Now you want me to show why Ch is diminished by the same factor by which time is slowed down. For it is this letter Ch which our survival depends upon. Ch is reduced in proportion to the “redshift” – reduction in ticking rate or frequency – of the light that emerges from the bottom of a rocket to its tip, or from the surface of a gravitating body towards a higher-up position. The emitted light down there has a lower frequency if time T ticks more slowly there, a well-known fact which is called “redshift” since red light has a lower frequency in our visible spectrum of colors.
On a black hole, now, gravity is so strong that the redshift is infinite there so that the energy (mass) of any ascending photon approaches zero without this fact being noticeable for a hypothetical local equally slowed-down inhabitant. Every material object is transformable into photons locally. Since physicists like to think concretely, imagine a so-called positronium atom down there which can be “annihilated” into two gamma photons and vice versa as is well known. Photon mass and particle mass hence are altered in parallel if it is true that all local masses are reduced in their mass-energy by the redshift factor of the photons as we saw. But locally, mass and charge do keep their fixed ratio as we know (since you can release the mass into free fall locally and it immediately is as in free outer space locally even though while freshly dropped it is still momentarily indistinguishable from its un-released equally motionless twin). So the (compared to the outside world) virtually massless positronium atom close to the surface of a black hole is equally virtually charge-less compared to the outer world.
This was the whole Telemach story put in the form of a logical proof – sorry I probably went too fast. But if I was not clear enough – or not right –, this does not matter at this point because to check on this iresult s precisely the task of the scientific “safety conference” asked for by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011. No specialist ever stood up so far to say, “I, the author of XX, contradict the Ch result or the full Telemach for that matter. They just for some reason refuse to answer: presumably because then my planet-wide pledge to be criticized in a public dialogue or conference — which CERN abhors — would be fulfilled on the spot.
A maximally simple scientific question is waiting to be answered publicly on our planet: Is it true that clocks slowed down in gravity are larger and less massive and less charged? So that the field lines observed on neutron stars are induced by more although less powerful charges on their surface than assumed so far? And that the distance to Andromeda really longer, light-years wise, owing to earthly yardsticks make for somewhat too long meter sticks?
You by now can perhaps understand why close to no one wanted to hear all that stuff so far – imagine: “Gauss and Stokes toppled because of Einstein almost half a century after his passing away.” Most every specialist is laughing with a good conscience ready rather to die than believe such nonsense. But why is their innocently refused dialogue unethical? This is only because of the lack of time that we have in the face of a huge machinery that needs money and public support on a democratic and popular-mood dependent basis. If your credibility rates can be stepped-down any moment, would anyone act rationally in CERN’s place?
After my rambling rendition of a partially ancient story, I now ask Anthony to kindly improve upon the text so that a respectable mass medium can accept it ‚or shorten it, or quote from it, or transform it into an understandable piece so that everyone on the planet can be informed about the new three letters “LHC” – as well as the correlated other three letters “LMCh” referring to a youthful David with an ancient Greek name. What will the media find to be the most interesting in the above unprofessional rambling produced by a journalistic greenhorn? (For J.O.R.)
And good luck to Anthony, who is expected to work on this delirium to make it readable… ;-)
PassingBy, you forget or perhaps don’t know that a first draft of any literary work very often is an untamed jungle, at least in the mind of any genius who is not a professional writer. I shall take my trusty panga and slice and thrust aside and clear a path for the bearers to carry your throne through to the oasis of understanding that lies ahead.
BTW, Jason of “El Naschie Watch” found a very interesting text written by a librarian at University of Colorado Denver. Check who’s first on the “List of Predatory Open Access Publishers”:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78839736/Beall-s-List-of-Predatory-Open-Access-Publishers-2012
YES, it’s the publisher of “African Journal of Mathematics”… ;-)
Here is Jason’s original post: http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2012/01/bealls-list.html
The next post is my editing of the text to remove infelicities of translation and expression in order to make it more understandable on the level of the New York Times, though I have left some words and phrases alone which probably should be changed to give the best possible impression (the use of the word “crazy” is not really suitable, for example. It is probably better to use “unexpected” or “unconventional” or such.)
The corrections I have made which may not precisely give Professor Rossler’s intended meaning or which may get it wrong are labeled with comments in double brackets (parentheses) in the form ((xxxx)).
Any contributions welcome from the academically sophisticated eg TRMGH PBy or Hansel, whose critique of Rossler’s material will be more psersuasive if the original is properly phrased for general consumption.
I am a “specialist in non-specialization”, in the words of my late Austrian friend Konrad Lorenz, and an “interdisciplinary hybrid” in those of my late American friend Bob Rosen. I can claim that my work in chaos theory is quite well known, in that I discovered a so-called “attractor” or “reproducible dynamic phenomenon” familiar in everyday experience (a hoarse voice and an idling motorcycle’s noise being examples). I also found that crying babies can produce “hyperchaos”, a discovery which got turned into a diagnostic tool in wards for the newborn by H. Herzel. My “brain equation” is also getting some recognition lately. My “smile theory” is my oldest but hardest to understand theory (though children typically have no difficulty with it!).
My recent “Telemach theorem” – named after Ulysses’ son Telemachus – is a much more frightening conceptual structure, however. It suggests that continuing escalation of the energy of operation of the Large Hadron Collider outside Geneva indeed has the potential of forming dangerous mini Black Holes which could consume the Earth.
A proven finding – a theorem – is true until a counterargument is found that topples it. The name Telemach has to do with the youth of ancient Greek myth who recognized a beggar as the long lost father he had believed was dead. In my title the acronym stands for Time, Length, Mass and Charge (T, L, M, Ch), four entities that can be measured in everyday life by means of simple devices — clocks, meter sticks, scales and volt meters.
You probably already know that there exists no “Ur-Second” in physics (because of Einstein’s work); but an “Ur-Meter” and an “Ur-Kilogram” and a “Universal Unit Charge” are believed to exist and are well known. The Ur-meter and the Ur-kilogram were actually quite costly and difficult to arrive at. The struggle took scientists and engineers many decades in furthering the science of measurement (Metrology) in this regard.
Therefore it is of some interest that my Telemach theorem in summary says that three “Urs” do not, after all, exist. The Ur-meter, the Ur-kilogram, the Ur-charge are all three as non-existent as the Ur-Second, dethroned 105 years ago by Albert Einstein, and the “Ur-Pound,” dethroned almost 350 years ago and proven to be nonexistent by Isaac Newton.
You might expect an excited reaction to the new elimination of three “Urs”, but my work has been met with silence. In one way this might seem surprising, since popular opinion holds that new findings are automatically embraced, since new equipment can be built and new money can be made. But there are always the old manufacturers, as it were. Something radically unexpected is never accepted without delay.
No doubt you are skeptical here: “Three major new things and no response” is implausible. Surely such a major offering of revisionist “new science” must be crazy? No one has said so up until now — yet I hope this “counter-reaction” will come soon. For the present confession is not meant as a bid for scientific recognition with three grand new theorems L, M, Ch as you might expect. On the contrary, I do not like these results: I wish them to be proven wrong.
The key word is “LHC”, the Large Hadron Collider, on line now: the biggest machine in history, comparable to the pyramids, the largest concerted endeavor of humanity of the past. The LHC cost about ten billion dollars and like the interior of the pyramids is well protected, and is located hundreds of feet underground, underneath CERN and adjacent to UNO. Almost no one is afraid of it except me.
Of course I am not the only critic of the LHC, but while the others speak of “possibilities” I speak of “proven probabilities” which is a different matter. Specifically, I have been saying for 4 years: “You have to stop immediately until your safety has been assessed in a scientific safety conference.” And for a whole year now, a German court has suggested the same thing — but no one in the public is informed of this, except the profession of medical laboratory assistants, a member of which filed the suit in question.
This silence has to do with the logic of the media that I find so difficult to understand. I hereby follow the advice of a member of the media by stating my case in front of you in the simplest and most understandable way: Why should such a beautiful experiment, the most expensive of history, be delayed even briefly for a conference about “mini black holes” to take place? You guess right: because of my Telemach. Like Diogenes basking in the sun in his town in Ancient Greece and asking Alexander the Great to move out of the way to let the sunshine reach him, this is bound to be thought crazy.
At this point my speech in defense of the planet begins with Telemach in the witness stand. L-M-Ch are the crucial new letters added to Einstein’s T. T means that the Time registered downstairs in a long vertical rocketship, that is in constant acceleration in outer space, is slowed-down compared to the tip. Here I skip the proportionally enlarged L (for Length) and the proportionally reduced M (for Mass) and concentrate on the Ch, which stands for Charge. My third new claim is that charge is not conserved in nature, just as the unit of time is not fixed.
This of course must seem absolutely ridiculous: Or so almost every physicist must feel, after almost two centuries in which science has taught that the opposite holds true. And if this tail of Telemach, the claim that Ch is not constant, is false, will the Large Hadron Collider experiment (LHC) at Geneva then be predictably safe from my point of view? The answer is Yes.
Are well-known textbooks not a stronger guarantee of truth than a single man’s proof — even if the latter is as youthful and old as Telemachus? I admit that this rule ordinarily holds true but, on the other hand, young David, sculptured by Michelangelo, still proudly exhibits his nakedness – and so at this moment does young Telemach.
What he stands up against is a most “noble” mathematical result accepted for two centuries. This says in its current physical application that if you have managed to put a given charge (think of an electron) into a bounded surface (a closed sack of any shape), then there is no way to diminish the sack’s attractive power on another sack containing the opposite charge (a positron, say) no matter how you might internally displace the charge in your sack: “The number of field lines leaving the sack is always constant.”
Two famous 19th century mathematicians, Gauss and Stokes, demonstrated this and their proof holds up to this day in the opinion of the highest-ranking specialists in the field, as I was told by one of them who quoted Robert M. Wald’s masterly book “General Relativity” of 1984 (see pages 432 – 434). Gauss’ and Stokes’ result remains authoritative – but no one can blame them for not yet knowing about black holes.
Black holes thus are the magic word. The name is the brainchild of my late friend John Wheeler (and at the same time that of an ancient farm near my University of Tübingen called “Schwärzloch”). The issue is about “my black holes” versus ”their black holes,” David against Goliath. The new knowledge revealed by Telemach on the one hand and the teaching of the better part of a century on the other are pitted against each other.
The Ch of TelemaCh says, applied to black holes, that any charge eaten by a black hole disappears. Therefore if you put a tiny black hole into the above sack along with the charge, Gauss and Stokes remain valid until you bring the charge close to the black hole and even let it fall down towards its surface. Then the sack becomes totally uncharged by virtue of Telemach, Gauss and Stokes notwithstanding.
Yet this is so of course only if Telemach is valid — the vigorous youth brought to life in Michelangelo’s David: “David versus Goliath or Telemach versus the suitors at CERN”. The CERNians by their openly ignoring Telemach insist that Penelope – their beautiful “black-hole factory LHC” as they call her with affection – belongs solely to them as their property. Telemach objects.
Is the whole world watching breathlessly? Not at all: The suitors — CERN (forgive me for the indictment before I have clinched the case) — do not want the world to know that they are in trouble. Even the United Nations Security Council – located not far from CERN – stands firmly on the suitors’ side. Therefore the media of the planet keep strict silence. The fact that on September 10, 2008, more than 500 international newspapers reported on my engagement with CERN is forgotten.
But suppose Telemach were true – then the miniblack holes they hope to produce at CERN can, # 1, not even be detected at CERN. And # 2, when eventually a sufficiently slow specimen is found amongst them, as will unavoidably occur in the long run, it will settle down inside planet earth to grow there exponentially as a mini-mini-quasar, putting the planet’s short-term survival to an end through turning it into a 2-cm black hole in a few years’ time.
This scenario is “absolute nonsense” as a scientist at CERN has said – if Telemach is not true. All I am asking my readers is to find out whether or not the youngster is right. In other words: to put a little bit of time aside so the question can be discussed by the foremost experts. This is all I have ever requested: the benefit of the doubt.
I stumbled across Telemach when I followed up – more diligently than this had been done before, perhaps – on the 28 years old young Einstein’s “happiest thought” (as he always called it because it was the breakthrough to his life’s work).
This had to do with his stomach, of all things. The story is well known among physicists. He was standing in front of the open window in the Swiss patent office in which he was employed, feeling an aching pull from the weight of his stomach after a heavy meal. And for some crazy reason he fleetingly imagined jumping out of the window right away – to experience in his mind’s eye an instant relief imn his stomach. For he realized in a flash that his stomach would cease pulling down on him as soon as he was in free fall. And indeed, anyone in free fall like an astronaut in outer space is weightless in regard to all of his organs as we know today from broadcasts from the International Space Station. In outer space, Einstein knew, the exact laws which apply are the very laws of special relativity discovered by himself two years before. So he realized in a flash that he was empowered to solve the riddle of gravity.
The first thing he found is signified by the “T” of Telemach: Time and all clocks are slowed down closer to the surface of the earth than farther up – a phenomenon now well known from the operation of the GPS system.
Regarding the other three letters of Telemach, it is easy to see that their variation could NOT be discovered at that time. But this new result takes a moment to explain. ((CHECK THAT SENTENCE))
Stemming from this “happiest thought”, the variability of Time, the capital T of Telemach, is universally accepted today. The variability of the other three letters – L, M, Ch (if Ch is understood as a single letter like Chi in the Greek alphabet) – is new, as mentioned, the last finding being barely 5 years old.
Now you will ask me to show you why Ch (charge) is diminished by the same factor by which time is slowed down. For it is this letter Ch on which our survival depends. ((EXPLAIN THIS STATEMENT))
((EXPLAIN WHERE CONVENTIONAL THINKING ENDS AND YOUR THEOREM STARTS — IS IT HERE? ARE YOU NOW STATING REALITY IN TERMS OF YOUR REVISION OF THEORY?)) Ch is reduced in proportion to the “redshift” – reduction in ticking rate or frequency – of the light that emerges from the bottom of a rocket compared to that emanating from its tip, or from the surface of a gravitating body compared to a higher position. The emitted light down in the lower position has a lower frequency, since time T ticks more slowly there This well-known fact is called “redshift”, since red light has a lower frequency in our visible spectrum of colors.
Now in a black hole, gravity is so strong that the redshift is infinite there, and the energy (mass) of any ascending photon approaches zero, without this fact being noticeable for a hypothetical local, equally slowed-down inhabitant.
Every material object is transformable into photons locally. So, since physicists like to think concretely, imagine a so-called positronium atom down there which can be “annihilated” into two gamma photons and vice versa, a familiar transformation. ((CHECK THAT SENTENCE)) Photon mass and particle mass hence are altered in parallel, if it is true that all local masses are reduced in their mass-energy by the redshift factor of the photons, as we have noted.
But locally, mass and charge do keep their fixed ratio as we know (since you can release the mass into free fall locally, and immediately it is as if it is in free outer space locally, even though when freshly dropped it is still momentarily indistinguishable from its un-released, equally motionless twin). So the virtually massless (compared to the outside world) positronium atom close to the surface of a black hole is equally virtually charge-less compared to the outer world.
This is the whole Telemach story put in the form of a logical proof . Sorry, if I went too fast. But if I was not clear enough – or not right –, this does not matter at this point, because to check on this result is precisely the task of the scientific “safety conference” asked for by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011.
So far, not one specialist has stood up to say, “I, the author of XX, contradict the Ch result, or the full Telemach” for that matter. They just refuse to answer, for some unstated reason. Presumably it is because if they did, then my planet-wide pledge to be criticized in a public dialogue or conference — which CERN abhors — would be fulfilled on the spot.
A maximally simple scientific question is waiting to be answered publicly on our planet: Is it true that clocks slowed down in gravity are larger and less massive and less charged? If so then the field lines observed on neutron stars are induced by more charges, although less powerful charges, on their surface than assumed so far. ((CHECK THAT SENTENCE)) And the distance to Andromeda is really longer, in terms of light-years, that currently estimated, owing to earthly yardsticks made from somewhat too long meter sticks? ((CHECK THAT SENTENCE))
By now you can perhaps understand why almost no one has wanted to hear all this so far. Imagine: “Gauss and Stokes toppled because of Einstein almost half a century after his passing away.” Almost every specialist is laughing at the idea, ready with a good conscience to die rather than believe such nonsense. But why is their innocent refusal to dialogue unethical? Only because time is running out in the face of a huge machine that needs money and public support on a democratic basis dependent on the popular mood. If your credibility can be lowered at any moment, would anyone act any differently in CERN’s place?
Sorry,
“three grand new theorems OF L,M, Ch” etc
and “this tail of Telemach” should be “this tale of Telemach”
“sculptured by Michelangelo, still proudly exhibits his nakedness – and so at this moment does young Telemach” seems an infelicitous phrase, but I cannot see what Prof R means by emphasizing this word (nakedness), which somewhat abuses the imagination of the delicate, other than his theorem stands wide open to criticism.
“somewhat too long meter sticks? ” should be “somewhat-too-long meter sticks.”
“has said so up until now” should be “has shown so up until now”
“most expensive of history” should be “the most expensive in history”
Frankly I think some of the political paragraphs’ reasoning — their logic — might be clarified but I have left it in the form the author originated, because one wants to retain the flavor of the original to some extent.
I seriously doubt that you would ever read that “the United Nations Security Council is located not far from CERN” in the NYT… ;-)
As to the physics, it is beyond repair (to be more precise, there is no physics at all in this text, just gibberish). You certainly cannot expect TRMG, Hansel or me to waste our time on this shipwreck.
BTW have you checked the link above on the reputation of “Academic Journals”?
“List of Predatory Open Access Publishers” — good find. But if you had any decency, you would have warned Prof. Rossler not to pay up.
I hope he hasn’t yet.
Yes, I assumed that Prof Rossler must be in receipt of some knowledge about the Security Council admin office being in Geneva, and not around the corner here in NYC. So, take out “Security Council” if you know better. Of course, in cosmological terms Geneva is not far from New York.…
I would certainly not expect you, PassingGas, Sir, to “waste time” on “gibberish” and “shipwrecks” but having taken the trouble to parse it into ordinary English I feel very hurt, Sir, at your strictures, although I recognize they probably flow from your laziness and your limbic system rather than your objective intellect.
Despite my liberal use of labels such as CHECK THIS SENTENCE I meant only for correct interpretation of his ideas, and my formulations seem perfectly sensible to me. I suggest therefore that you hitch up your cerebrum and decouple your amygdala, not to mention your lower intestine, and try to come up with cogent objections, if any, to Professor Rossler’s beautifully formulated subversion of the texts to which you pray.
After all, he has stated that is all he wishes for.
Dear Anthony:
I am most grateful for your text. We learned that only part of UNO is near Geneva, and the SCUN is not there physically, only by loyalty. So this must be corrected. And I am not astonished that physicists who cannnot but cling to ill-understood difficult-to-interpret equations cannot translate them (or simpler ones) into pictures in their minds. This is a disease that is fairly common. But then the few who can visualize and translate to the others would be needed here — Maxwell already remarked on this.
What else: Is there a single counter-voice, a single counterclaim that anything I said is wrong? Does the old metrology survive? Can a journalist ask a high-ranking metrologist about what he thinks about these new findings?
Next, when I will have read through the text, I may be able to improve a bit again, since this is the purpose of dialogue: to learn from one another.
More on “Academic Journals” from the same librarian guy:
http://metadata.posterous.com/description-of-an-open-access-scam
http://scholarlyoa.com/category/scholarly-open-access-publishers/
http://www.dawn.com/2011/12/26/publishing-scam.html
Rossler, I join Anthony (see above) in hoping that you haven’t disbursed the $550 yet… ;-)
@passingbyagain:
As Rössler is still believing nonsense like longer or shorter seconds (unbelievable as the nonsense of this was shown to him several times) there is probably even a kind of changed Euro-value depending on the level of crackpottery you have reached.
:D
It is pretty clear to me that it is a matter of how you choose to look at the interrelationship between time and gravity as to whether you see longer seconds or fewer hours below compared to those clocked above, and one is as good as the other for the purpose as long as you follow Einstein in saying that the time below passes more slowly than that clocked above, however you want to look at it.
I will stand corrected if the esteemed Hansel can explain why he thinks the difference is vital, but I fear that as a worker bee he thinks only on the textbook level and is unwilling or even incapable of thinking on the general or meta plane where it is the direction of the interrelationships that matters, not how you choose to count them. I hope that is not so.
Prof. Rossler has every right to look at it either way as long as he follows Einstein in stating that the time below passes more slowly than the time above, where the clock will register more hours because it will clock more and if you like shorter units of time, where shorter is measured relative to the units clocked below. He has said he does, so there is really no problem, or if there is, it arises more from the irrepressible Hansel’s narrow view than Rossler’s crackpottery.
What we need is to get away from the unimaginative level of textbook explication of standard belief and critique Rossler’s imaginative manipulation of relationships on the same level as he is performing it by stating why it doesn’t fly to say that L M and Ch might vary with gravity as well as T. At the moment it seems rather beyond the powers of the jeering squad to say anything along these lines. This is most unexpected and disappointing.
But at the moment the ball is in their court, and if it stays there onlookers must count it as a defeat for his critics. Rude jibes such as “crackpottery” or “shipwreck” etc are amusing for the superannuated adolescents who write them and their readers with a sense of humor but do not serve to return the ball to the other side.
Prof. Rossler I believe it is necessary for you to respond to the editing comments in double brackets so that outsiders can be clear as to what you intend to say. I hope you can do that without too much trouble. Also, I would have to say that I hope with PassingG that you have not handed over your money to the Nigerians yet. I don’t believe the reputation of the publisher will yield the respectful reading of your masterwork that you seek.
Anthony, the differences were already explaines by TRMG, Passingby and me months ago several times in aother Rössler postings. I will not waste my time any longer to repeat the same stuff again after the experience that it will not be understood because the people are simply blind believers of the doomsday guru because he is a warning outsider and the outsider is always right because he is one ( the Galilei-argument) and when the outsider is warning against something he is even more credible because of that. Go thourgh the old postings, there are examples why Rösslers views are simply nonsense — you will also find the avasive behaviour of Rössler, who never answered any precise argument, who never showed a at least low qualitiy scientific statement. (It is almost amusing that he is talking about giving a prosaic, less scientific summary in the above posting as he never gave anything else than a prosa :D )
Additionally it does not make any sense to talk to people any more who think that every piece of words they do not fully understand in CERN papers and so on would prove something about a kind of evil game CERn is playing. For example no one here thought a second about whether there could be a reason for ome detectors except the principle ability of the instrument to detect strangelets (the detector by the way was build and designed long before the results of RHIC were completely evaluated, another point). It does not make sense any more to talk to people who pick words from documents wihtout thinking about the physics and therefore chaninging the meaing completely. The nonsense which is currently written about cosmic ray arguments in other sections is a good example for that. Together with totally wrong views about dimensions and foreces on nuclears scales some people construct differences which are simply not present — the experts know, the laymen not. No problem but if the laymen were tolld countless times in years and are writing the same bullshit again, the experts will simply leave the discussions to not waste their time any longer. This is then called “the experts “avooid discussions” or “are evasive like the profesor (Rössler)” (which rises also the question why this evasive behaviour is seen for the one group in a different way than for the crank with the same conclusions :D ). There are more examples, in CERN documents words are picked and investigated pseudo-critically and in case of the professor not even the most obvious nonsense like the always changing, unfounded probablilities ar accepted or “overseen”:
No, AnthonyL, after having this experiences for more than four years, first on german blogs, I and many others will not waste their time any longer to talk against stupid walls containing pseudocritical blind believers. The arguments are already there, you can read them, think about them or not. Your decision.
Mr. Rössler!
Your “friend Konrad Lorenz” was a supporter of Nazi-fascism and a bloody racist. He wrote in 1940: “The racial idea as the basis of our political system has already infinitely done much in this direction.” With “this direction” he meant the eradication of what he thought are “asocial cells” and “ethical inferior”. Even in writings of the 70s he repeated this ideology. You are proud of him? You try to use his “authority”? Disgusting!
For more quotations and references see (in German language, but quite detailed): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Lorenz
Pinky, the gothic mouse
Dear Hansel (and who ever)
I still read the comments here. Hansel you write: “The nonsense which is currently written about cosmic ray arguments in other sections is a good example for that. Together with totally wrong views about dimensions and foreces on nuclears scales some people construct differences which are simply not present — the experts know, the laymen not.“
Why do you try to give a wrong impression here and why do you tell it here and not answer my questions in the safety conference theme?
It is very easy to tell such a phrase. So would you be so kind to tell me how many % of my points regarding the (false) cosmic ray argument of LSAG would be wrong (and why) or can you explain me in detail (not vage) why a single one of my arguments regarding this would be wrong? I am still waiting here or in the safety conference theme for your criticism. But please not somewhere else, right?
Thank you.
Dear Hansel and friends
It makes practically no difference, whether a car drives with 100km per hour into a wall or the wall moves with the same speed into the car. But at nearly the speed of light the following becomes important.
You have two coordinate systems of two particle collisions: One coordinate system is moving relative to the other.
It is possible to convert the moving coordinate system into a “center of mass”-coordinate system and for example it is right that the collision energy will be the same.
But the conversion of a moving coordinate system into the “center of mass”-coordinate system gives wrong results regarding the velocity, distribution and phenomena of the (secondary) collision particles and fields. Therefore not only the collision for itself must be considered but also the reference systems and the matter which is crossed by the (secondary) particles. Thank you.
And Hansel: The decreased decay rate of fast particles due to time dilatation is a nice example.
Dear all
Hansel wrote: “For example no one here thought a second about whether there could be a reason for ome detectors except the principle ability of the instrument to detect strangelets (the detector by the way was build and designed long before the results of RHIC were completely evaluated, another point).”
Strangelets and how CERN´s documents contradict its safety assurance:
http://www.heavyionalert.org/docs/CERNContradictions.pdf
CERN-physicists say that higher collision energies produce more massive strangelets also.
It is known that CERN/LSAG does not tell much about the differences between cosmic ray collisions and collisions at the LHC, but have you seen the following phrase (see end of abstract)?
“Because of the much larger mass number, Pb-Pb events can be expected to show exotic phenomena that is beyond the reach of cosmic rays.“
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1046330
Best regards to all.
@Hansel Dear H, it is charming that you write such a full reply to my request that you finally say something cogent in general terms about Rossler’s scheme, but it would be more valuable if you actually did so. I can find nothing in what you say which amounts to a hill of beans on the topic or takes it a step further. You claim that you find that the critics don’t appreciate your expertise and their lack of it is the problem, but you have given no indication that you have even read the safety arguments peddled by CERN itself properly. If you had you would know that they are perfectly well understood by cirticsd and even journalists such as myself and in fact their flaws are obvious to any member of the public who cares to follow the argument.
Apparently it is only yourself who believes that the flaws dont exist and are made up by the imaginative untutored readers who criticize them. You need to read the references you are given before you are qualified to criticize the complaints as caused by lack of understanding of CERN simple safety reasoning, some of which was actually intended for the general public.
’
Sorry you have conducted your skirmishes with the critics on blogs for years now, but I predict that they would continue without effect for years to come until you actually read the material being discussed. Why not start with Eric Johnson, as I suggested. There are 97 pages to make everything clear to you at http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.5480.pdf
Perhaps you might then rise to the meta level occupied by Prof Rossler, and actually be able to critique what he says to some effect, without thinking that your expertise automatically debunks it. What we are talking about here is the design of a bridge, not the nuts and bolts of putting it together. Your expertise is the latter, according to your own posts.
The outcome of ever rising energy levels at the LHC remains to be properly analyzed in terms that take into account very general claims and assertions by many physicists who differ on the bridge design or meta level. You have yet to show that you can discuss things to advantage on this level. I am sure you can, but you don’t seem to be willing to try.
I have faith in you Hansel! Please try it.
One way to start might be to ask you to find a single misleading statement in Eric John’s account, at http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.5480.pdf.
You should be able to find something, surely, in 89 pages (sorry, pp 819 to 908, which is 89, not 91).
Johnson, not John, sorry.
Quote from Johnson:
“My motivation in writing is certainly not to engender fear. I have no
apprehension to share. Nor is it my intent or my desire to shut down the LHC. Mine is not a policy argument. Frankly, my research for this article has intensified my armchair interest in seeing what results from the LHC’s novel experiments. My argument is one of law. My conviction is that, when a blackhole case arrives on a docket, no court should abdicate its role as a bursar of equity, even where, as here, the socio-political pressure to abstain will be immense, the factual terrain will be intensely intellectually challenging, and the jurisprudential conundrums are legion. At the end of the day, whether the LHC represents an intolerable danger is, in my view, an open question. I have not
endeavored to provide a definitive answer. But I think the courts should.
It is part of our 21st Century reality that we must take seriously a number of surreal planetary disaster scenarios. In that sense, the synthetic-black-hole disaster is not unique. For some time now, we have been confronted with the possibility of nuclear war and global climate change. In the future, we may have to remove still more scenarios from the science fiction category and place them on a list of real worries. Someday, we may need to seriously consider catastrophic threats from nanotechnology, genetic engineering, or artificial intelligence. Each one of these human-made global disaster scenarios involves incredibly complex questions of science, engineering, and mathematics. Courts
must develop tools to deal meaningfully with such complexity. Otherwise, the wildly expanding sphere of human knowledge will overwhelm the institution of the courts and undo the rule of law—just when we need it most. ”
Thus, this is a proper Lifeboat topic, and the implications are enormous, and the discussion here is a public service in itself. It is the moral and social responsibility of informed participants in the CERN adventure such as Hansel to give up taking endless ineffective potshots against Rossler’s personality and discuss the enormous issue at stake.
The Cologne Administrative Court endorsed Professor Johnson’s position on January 27, 2011.
The planetary law community is refusing to respond to both : Why?