Otto E. Rossler, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Tubingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 8, 72076 Tubingen, F.R.G.
Resumé
There are new developments in gravitation theory beginning in 2005. They have changed the previously accepted scientific picture of black holes. On the basis of these results, a currently running experiment, designed to produce artificial black holes of very low velocity, has ceased to be innocuous. The experimentally hoped-for “mini black holes,” (1) become more likely to arise, (2) do not evaporate, (3) are undetectable by the machine, (4) will in part get stuck inside earth and (5) will grow there exponentially so as to shrink the earth to 2 cm in perhaps 5 years’ time. Hence a re-appraisal of the experiment is necessary before it can be allowed to go on. Please, rule so, dear Council.
(July 30, 2011)
A previously overlooked new fact in gravitation theory is the reason for my turning to you. It looks simple enough: the rest mass-energy of a particle decreases with increasing gravity. To witness, on a neutron star on which gravity is so high that clocks tick almost twice as slow, every particle has only half the outside rest mass without this fact being locally detectable. This mass-change result, implicit in a dissertation of a co-worker submitted in 2005, represents the main content of a 2007 paper accepted for publication by the journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals [1]. The same result was independently derived two years later by Richard J. Cook of the Air Force Academy [2]. It finally was obtained on the highest level of technical sophistication by a specialist who wants to remain anonymous while insisting that all credit go to the late Arthur Komar [3]. A maximally simple derivation finally is the “Telemach theorem” [4].
Many predictions pertinent to particle collisions are overthrown as a consequence of the mass-change result. Designing new tailor-made experiments will take several years. All of this is nothing but ordinary scientific progress, taking its due time to be tested and become mainstream wisdom.
By a twist of fate, the new result happens to possess more than just academic interest. A machine that was designed to produce miniature black holes — the Large Hadron Collider of CERN — suddenly becomes the most dangerous endeavor of humankind. As familiar from similar examples in the past, the scientific community is sluggish in recognizing the significance of the situation.
Science sometimes transcends its usual boundaries by spilling over into everyday life and politics. This happens to be the case here. An experiment thought to be purely academic (except for some theoretically unexplored features of quark-gluon plasmas drawn attention to by my colleague Walter Wagner) acquires a menacing character because the most hoped-for experimental outcome suddenly possesses radically new features: black holes.
“Black holes” were so named by John Wheeler in 1968 [5] who had inherited his impishness from his mentor, Einstein. Three years later, Johnny (as his friends sometimes called him) joked that “a black hole has no hair” (in apparent allusion to a Berlin pop song from the 1920s, “Say is it true that the frog at the butt has no hair?”) — “except for three.” The remaining three hairs were: mass, angular momentum and charge [6]. Only three years later, Stephen Hawking [7] described a fourth hair brought-in by quantum mechanics (Hawking evaporation). The latter property would – he argued – drain away mass-energy, slowly emaciating every black hole until it would eventually explode (“evaporate”) on having grown maximally small – as small as the tiny black holes hoped-for at CERN.
Now, almost 4 decades later, two of the remaining four hairs prove to be clipped (charge and evaporation). This fundamentally altered situation logically requires a re-evaluation of the safety equation of the LHC experiment, since the most looked-forward-to fruits of the experiment (mini black holes [8]) have become undetectable by detectors designed on the basis of the overhauled theory. This situation represents a drawback for a lovingly set-up world-class experiment which also is the most expensive of history. Some resistance shown by the scientific community is predictably preprogrammed.
This new situation would not represent a sufficient reason to bother the world’s Security Council – were it not for the fact that the experiment has become unsafe. The undetectable miniature black holes hoped to be generated at a rate of one per second [8] will now do new things which, unfortunately, are not innocuous.
To evaluate the totally changed situation, a “scientific safety conference” was proposed in 2008, with Prince Charles who is widely esteemed for his “green thumb” as the chair. The whole issue was approached in a hope-inspired light tone [9].
But the harsh logic of real-life constraints struck. Would a public safety assessment not cause unnecessary delays and, what is more, drain away valuable public confidence? One member state of CERN’s – Austria — even announced to leave CERN, to reluctantly return after closed-door admonitions.
It goes without saying that the most awesome experiment of history — with its thousands of physicists, the cream of creams, and with all influential governments of the globe participating either as members or as accredited observers who have to contribute too — cannot easily change course. Should it really do so only because a new chapter of future textbook results has been opened up?
Any safety assessment is a double-edged endeavor. What it achieves in terms of added rationality, it jeopardizes in terms of lost planning security. So it is no wonder that there has been little enthusiasm to comply with such a request. Pascal’s logic – a very big risk deserves absolute priority – is predictably hard to enforce in the reality of a tight-budget multinational endeavor.
Does this mean that everything is in perfect order? From the point of view of bureaucracy, the answer is yes, from the point of view of safety, the answer is no. For the risk that our earth will be eaten inside out by the first sufficiently slow artificial mini black hole (anticipated to be produced in a matter of ten days [8]) can be estimated to be roughly 1:6 — a “Russian roulette” — with the added feature of the remaining time for the planet being of the order of 5 years [10]. The low estimate for the remaining time stems from the fact that an independent physical theory – chaos theory – conspires predicting that every resident miniature black hole will be turned into an exponentially growing “miniquasar” [10]. Thirdly, the final safety argument offered by CERN to the world before the new results were brought to its knowledge in early 2008 – the continued existence of neutron stars in the sky – was evaporated by another independent physical theory, quantum mechanics [11]. Thus, three totally disjoint sciences (relativity, chaos and quantum) conspire by each refusing to give the all-clear signal to be expected from at least one of them on the basis of common sense: A “trap” put to humankind by nature as it were.
After the experiment inadvertently got shrunk in half energy-wise, following an early technical accident in September 2008, the probability of earth’s being transformed into a 2-cm mini-quasar got cut in half too – from 16 to 8 percent. This still dreadful level will be reached once the experiment has attained its maximum luminosity or cumulative number of collisions.
Currently, CERN has reached one ninth of the originally planned luminosity while scheduling to reach one third by the end of the next three months [12]. If the already incurred risk thus is 0.8 percent (8÷9 = 0.8), this means that more than a quarter of the danger of 8 percent to be reckoned with will be realized by the end of October 2011. It goes without saying that every single day that the experiment is halted earlier for re-evaluation purposes is worthwhile. The single eventually lethal collision event could happen on the last day before the conference starts.
Nothing more is being asked than to have a second look. A court in Germany — the “Cologne Administrative Court” – before whom CERN was standing as a defendant on January 27, 2011 – concluded its ruling after stating that it could not override an earlier ruling by the German supreme court, on the following sentence which for some reason went unreported in the media:
THE COURT EXPRESSES THAT IT SHOULD BE POSSIBLE TO LET THE VARIOUS SAFETY ASPECTS, WHICH ALSO WERE THE SUBJECT OF THE TWO SAFETY REPORTS FROM THE YEARS 2003 AND 2008, BE DISCUSSED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF A “SAFETY CONFERENCE” [13].
I am aware that I have no right to contact you owing to my being an ordinary person only. But I stand here representing the whole scientific community and every citizen and country of the planet when I say: Please, dear Highest Delegates of Planet Earth, do endorse the request made by the Cologne Administrative Court by declaring: LET US HAVE A SECOND LOOK IMMEDIATELY.
For J.O.R.
References
[1] O.E. Rossler, “Abraham-like return to constant c in general relativity: ‘gothic-R-theorem’ demonstrated in Schwarzschild metric,” 2007, http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/ottoroesslerminiblackhole.pdf (second paper there). Revised version: http://ww.wissensnavigator.com/documents/Chaos.pdf
[2] R.J. Cook, “Gravitational space dilation”, 2009, http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2811
[3] A. Komar, “Covariant conservation laws in general relativity.” Phys. Rev. 113, 934–936 (1959), http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/23/24/L01/pdf/cqg6_24_l01.pdf
[4] O.E. Rossler, “Einstein’s equivalence principle has three further implications besides affecting time: T-L-M-Ch Theorem,” 2011,
http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/einsteins-equivale…t-l-m-.pdf
[5] J.A. Wheeler , “Our universe, the known and the unknowns.” The American Scholar 37, No.2, 248 (1968).
[6] J.A. Wheeler 1971, quoted in: K.S. Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps, New York: W.W. Norton 1994, p. 275.
[7] S.W. Hawking, “Black hole explosions.” Nature 245, 30–31 (1974).
[8] B. Giddings and S. Thomas, “High energy colliders as black hole factories: The end of short distance physics.” Phys. Rev. D, Vol. 65. 10.1103/PhysRevD.65.056010 (2002).
[9] O.E. Rossler, “A petition to CERN,” April 2008,
http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/PetitiontoCERN.pdf
[10] O.E. Rossler, “Abraham solution to Schwarzschild metric implies that CERN miniblack holes pose a planetary risk.” In: Vernetzte Wissenschaften – Crosslinks in Natural and DSocial Sciences (P.J. Plath and E.C. Haas, eds.), Berlin: Logos Verlag 2009 (July), pp. 263–270 (submitted September 2007), http://ww.wissensnavigator.com/documents/ottoroesslerminiblackhole.pdf (first paper there).
[11] O.E. Rossler, “A rational and moral and spiritual dilemma.” In: Personal and Spiritual Development in the World of Cultural Diversity (G.E. Lasker and K. Hiwaki, eds.), Vol. 5, Tecumseh: The International Institute for Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics 2008 (July), pp. 61–66,
http://ww.wissensnavigator.com/documents/spiritualottoeroessler.pdf
[12] A. Rydd and M. Ferro-Luzzi, “Experiment’s desiderata,” slide No. 8, http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=1&sess…fId=144632
[13] Original German ending of the Cologne Administrative Court’s ruling: “Das Gericht gibt seiner Meinung Ausdruck, dass es möglich sein sollte, die unterschiedlichen Sicherheitsaspekte, die auch Gegenstand der beiden Sicherheitsberichte aus den Jahren 2003 und 2008 waren, im Rahmen einer ‘Sicherheitskonferenz‘ diskutieren zu lassen“,
http://www.juris.de/jportal/portal/page/homerl.psml?cmsuri=/…A110100233
Rossler: starting a new thread does not exempt you from addressing the questions you left unanswered in the previous ones.
In particular, concerning your 1998 diagram which — as you claim — explains how you go from Einstein’s eq.(30a) to the seemingly contradictory eq.(1) of “Telemach”:
http://oi55.tinypic.com/nnla3o.jpg
What are THE UNITS on the time axes t1 and t2? Are the axes showing local proper time or not? If not, what are they showing?
Is there any reason in the world why you should refuse to answer? Perhaps in the meantime you realized that the diagram is incorrect?
The people of all nations owe a debt of gratitude to Professor Rossler both for his scientific insight and for his moral efforts in alerting the world to the catastrophic risk of black hole formation at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider. This cogent report to the Security Council is an excellent review of the reasons why the production of black holes may be a threat to the future of our planet as a whole.
There has never been so destructive a threat in the planet’s history. Even the horror of a nuclear war between the superpowers would leave most of humanity alive and the Earth still habitable. Black holes, however, are the most destructive phenomena in the universe, capable of shredding and consuming millions of stars. As Dr. Rossler points out, accretion by a localized black hole would reduce the Earth to a marble size, destroying all nations and all life.
It is imperative that there be a safety conference and review of the issues, which includes critics of the LHC and not just its advocates. In the meantime, in the interest of public safety, the Security Council should order a halt to all high-energy experiments at the LHC and block further funding to CERN.
(Correction: The links of Refs. 1, 10, and 11 require an extra “w” after the double slash.)
Professor, your statement is expressed in good English for the most part, much better than some of your previous statements, and often in perfect English, like some of your physics papers, which appear to have been edited properly for publication, at least in the main scientific body of the work.
But there are still occasional flaws which detract from the impression of serious purpose you say you feel. These are not very long texts. It would be appropriate for you to use a sophisticated English speaker to edit their final versions for publication.
It would not take such a person very much time at all. He/she could simply skim them and correct them immediately since your intention is always clear and the corrections very simple ones. Some of the corrections would be as simple as word order, eg “so rule”, instead of “rule so”.
I am not suggesting that you have some kind of duty to know English perfectly, but it is important to get the help of a skilled English speaker to avoid these needless trivial distractions from your main point, which is the most serious in the world, if as you believe the future of the planet is threatened.
Unfortunately they imply that you do not care enough to get things straight on the language level, which does easily give the impression that you are not therefore serious in your intent.
Since you care very much, you say, about this matter, as you demonstrate by being the only senior scientist willing and courageous enough now to be outspoken in public on this concern, it is important to get the language perfectly straight.
Please view this as a request not as any criticism of you, your science or your political goal.
Anthony L. has been trivializing the serious issues raised by Prof. Rossler by producing fussy, condescending comments that sneer with disapproval. Get off your high horse, Anthony. Dr. Rossler’s English is excellent and, frankly, better than your own in these threads.
Frankly, who cares about Rossler’s English? It certainly sounds good enough to me. The real problem is that his “theorem” does not make sense. Judging by Rossler’s recent refusal to even acknowledge simple and well-defined questions about his 1998 diagram, he too must have realized that…
“Get off your high horse, Anthony. Dr. Rossler’s English is excellent and, frankly, better than your own in these threads”- Houston
Good example of exposing yourself as a “fanboy”, as the presumably gay members of the CERN squad put it. If you cannot distinguish between good and bad English grammar, Houston, in your hurry to defend Professor Rossler against what you see as “sneering with disapproval” in a “condescending” manner (actually good advice on the pr front if battling large institutional windmills), how can one trust your judgment as to the important and quality of papers?
Any examples of how Rossler’s grammar and syntax are “better” than mine? Or do you want me to list the awkward expressions in the above Professorial post?
PasingBY your concern is physics and your experience with uphill battles to force truth into the group mind protected by a pyramid of conventional wisdom, institutional billions and general prejudice against heretics is probably nil, so one doesn’t expect you to care about what is a very important factor in advancing against these fortifications.
Language.
What is expressed badly may be much more easily dismissed as silly crackpotism than language which demonstrates one is a fully paid up member of the intellectually sophisticated classes.
“the importanCE and quality of”, sorry
The language of physics is math, not English, German or French. And Roessler has shown here that he doesn’t speak that language at all.
Just to be clear, the above post is indeed in perfect English except for a few very trivial editing flaws of no significance in conveyed meaning whatsoever — “Resume” should be “Summary”, “rule so” should be “so rule”, “to witness” presumably should be “to wit”, “as familiar” should be “as is familiar”, “announced to leave” should be “announced it would leave”, “lost planning security” presumably means “threatening future operations”, “the cream of creams” should be “the cream of the cream” (better “la creme de la creme”), “conspires predicting” should be “also predicts”, “was evaporated” should be “was vitiated”, “A trap put to” should be “A trap set for”, “energy-wise” should be be “in terms of energy level”, “while scheduling” should be “being scheduled to”, “(concluded) on the following sentence” would better be “(concluded) with the following sentence”, “to have a second look” should be “to take a second look”, “THE COURT EXPRESSES THAT IT SHOULD BE POSSIBLE TO LET THE VARIOUS SAFETY ASPECTS, WHICH ALSO WERE THE SUBJECT OF THE TWO SAFETY REPORTS FROM THE YEARS 2003 AND 2008, BE DISCUSSED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF A “SAFETY CONFERENCE” should be “THE COURT EXPRESSES THE OPINION THAT IT SHOULD BE POSSIBLE TO DISCUSS THE VARIOUS SAFETY ASPECTS, WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN THE SUBJECT OF TWO SAFETY REPORTS IN 2003 AND 2008, AT A SAFETY CONFERENCE”, “my being an ordinary person only” should be “my unofficial status as a citizen of the world”, “LET US HAVE A SECOND LOOK” should be “LET US TAKE A SECOND LOOK”, and as Houston has pointed out the two links missing a “w” should be corrected.
None of this directly affects Professor’s Rossler’s personal, scientific or political standing or goals but it does affect their reception by those who have never read what he has said or written, just as clothing details affect social status whether we like it or not.
Since his purpose is very serious and the issue he is concerned with the most momentous possible involving the Fate of the Earth, there is no sense in allowing it to be affected by small details of a language which is not native to him, in which he is already fluent, and which can easily be fixed by anyone whose mother tongue is English.
Since the text is already perfectly sophisticated in most respects, it would give quite the wrong impression to leave it with small details uncorrected when addressing the UN or any body to which he sends it. Rossler’s own father is a linguist, and he has taught and spoken in English at work and play at many universities and on other platforms in English speaking nations, as his CV reveals.
By saying that I felt he should drop a bunkerbuster on his Web critics here I meant that it would be clarifying and quotable if he should deliver a strongly worded comprehensive final text in response to their dissatisfaction with his always polite, friendly and suggestive but limited responses to their harassment.
This solid text which he apparently wrote overnight is the kind of thing that I had in mind, directed at the issue they are focusing on, so that it can be fully resolved.
“The language of physics is math, not English”?
Not both? Math for precision, perhaps, but language for relations between factors whose exact mathematical relations have not yet been conclusively understood and precisely formulated?
Wouldn’t initial speculations in creative exploration of physics (Rossler’s metier, it seems) be wordless and mathless, like fumbling with spatial relations in a puzzle like Rubiks Cube or a linked pair of horseshoes with a ring around their connecting chains which resists ever being taken off — until you understand it and solve it?
Groping for physical understanding can precede linguistic formulation which can precede mathematical formulation, no?
One has the impression that therein may lie the misunderstanding that has kept Rossler and you all apart for 1000 comments here, even after he agreed with you that Einstein had it right, and said that was what he meant.
One might hire you to work out how to get to the moon, but Rossler to explore how to get to the stars.
The problem is that his equations are wrong and in contrast to experimental data.
And that is what matters in the end.
AnthonyL wrote: „Wouldn’t initial speculations in creative exploration of physics (Rossler’s metier, it seems)…”
Well, if that’s the case, than we wouldn’t have this discussion here. Unfortunately Roessler is stating he has proof for certain findings (and combines his claims with accusations). which has nothing to do with “initial speculations in creative exploration”. This is the time for using math, not English. And as it was shown here and elsewhere, his math is wrong, his conclusions are contradicting reality as shown in experiments. Case closed.
Also, your statement “One might hire you to work out how to get to the moon, but Rossler to explore how to get to the stars” is interesting. Mankind has been to the moon, not to the stars. Also if we want to go to the stars, we might want to think of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, rather than Roessler, His use of language is much better.
Finally: what is your take on Roessler’s statement: “I stand here representing the whole scientific community and every citizen and country of the planet´….”? As Roessler is clearly NOT representing the scientific community (let alone the whole), and NOT speaking for every citizen, this is either just another lie by Roessler or a sign of seriously mental illness (he seriously believes he is some sort of God). Either one is not good.
Peter H.
About philanthropy in education for risk extruding space exploration, from part “4. Measure Your Impact” at http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/naveen-jain-rethinking-sustainable-philanthropy with an extraction — read between the quotation marks: “… Simple metrics can be a powerful tool to engage people’s competitive spirit and harness it for a good cause… This approach is what the X Prize Foundation has done in the nonprofit science field, from genomics to space exploration—it defines the goal, sets the parameters, and measures the results. And at the end there is a payoff: a cash prize for the innovators and a new body of human knowledge…” And now an unqualified comment from the last of all physics outsiders who does not want to shut up, only to show how inferior these outsiders are to you, the real important reader in physics — read between the quotation marks: “yes, always get from genomics to space exploration. Many potential physicists are very needy and require urgently support from donations to learn the best mathematics of how to qualify for leadership with this important goal, escp. to develop the hardest physical aspects and parts for space research. Naturally, physics research scientist, the highest member of the educational-mathematical elite in natural science, needs most of all donations for better human knowledge in mathematics, gaining more and better academic papers with more and better progress. You will also end up in a mentally- and emotionally critical situation if you are not supportive to these goals. The best mathematics are for physicists only, the greatest VIP section in education of highest importance, so the rest and the others shall be writing a report in best English how good and important the majority of physicists are, to receive more education in their only language: mathematics. Help to make people happy the way natural science has ordered them to be, pay money for them, and tell non of the outsiders that this world is not staying sane, because physicists are saying who is sane and who is not. Everything else would be against the laws of physics. Make the goals at https://lifeboat.com/ex/donations clear and a planetdeath more likely!”
robomoon, what exactly are you smoking? I’d like to try some ;-)
Robomoon, could you please translate what you have attempted to post above to help us all think about this very serious issue into an intelligible sequence of words understandable by those of us brought up with a conventional education?
PassingBy, Rossler is representing the entire planet and its population in his preference not to be swallowed up by a mBH (or multi mBHs, as Rainer Plaga now has it, which might swallow us all in one hour) . Or are you saying you won’t mind if this happens, it will be worth the sacrifice to find out what the LHC will actually yield?
Mankind has indeed been to the moon, and partly through the expertise and application of conventional working physicists, and partly through luck, most of our representatives have survived the attempt. I would not imagine that Professor Rossler would be interested in working on such a project, but he can correct me if I am wrong.
Where he might be useful is thinking about possibilities of space travel over much greater distances, which seem to demand an imaginative leap in understanding of ways it might happen. I doubt that many reliable people would be interested in signing up for a trip to the nearest star using current means and understanding.
I assume you do not think Professor Rossler is lacking in imagination? He seems to have a talent in that regard which is quite beyond the “soporific zombies” (in the phrase of one indignant LHC critic) who run the LHC.
“Also if we want to go to the stars, we might want to think of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, rather than Roessler, His use of language is much better”
Were you thinking of this?
The machine does not isolate man from the great problems of nature but plunges him more deeply into them.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Or this?
Only the unknown frightens men. But once a man has faced the unknown, that terror becomes the known.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
or this?
Grown-ups never understand anything for themselves, and it is tiresome for children to be always and forever explaining things to them.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Hard to see how much Saint-Expery would contribute to advanced astronomical physics compared with Rossler, or are you just being rude to R ossler?
Dr. Rossler has presented a fine article with impeccable English. Instead of appreciating this, Anthony L. seems to be playing a vain game of one-upmanship regarding language, Anthony writes that since the issue involves “the Fate of the Earth, there is no sense in allowing it to be affected by small details of a language…” Yet in this and a previous thread, he has distracted readers from Rossler’s serious issues by making petty comments about “small details” of language.
When I pointed out that Rossler’s English was excellent, Anthony wrote, “If you cannot distinguish between good and bad English grammar, Houston,.…how can one trust your judgment as to the important and quality of papers?” [sic]. I can indeed spot bad grammar, such as that displayed in Anthony’s question. (The object of the prepositional phrase “as to” should be a noun, not an adjective.) In contrast, Dr. Rossler’s article contained no error of grammar.
Anthony subsequently acknowledged his error and admitted that Rossler’s post “is indeed in perfect English.” He claimed, however, that it had “a few very trivial editing flaws” and proceeded to list some 17. But not a single one of these involved a grammatical error or “editing flaw”; all were in acceptable English. Anthony was merely substituting stylistic alternatives that he preferred. In most cases, however, I found Rossler’s original wording superior. In particular, Dr. Rossler’s translation of the court opinion was a more accurate rendition of the original German than Anthony’s substitute.
@above “A previously overlooked new fact in gravitation theory is the reason for my turning to you. It looks simple enough: the rest mass-energy of a particle decreases with increasing gravity. To witness, on a neutron star on which gravity is so high that clocks tick almost twice as slow, every particle has only half the outside rest mass without this fact being locally detectable.”
Does this mean that the Neutron Star loses half its mass as it collapses? Or am I misunderstanding this? If this is correct, how will this affect the evolution of binary systems? Or do I misunderstand.
Also — does “Telemach” imply that the accretion cross-sections of blach holes (their sizes, in plain English) are larger than Giddings and Mangano used for their calculations of black hole accretion times (black holes formed by cosmic ray collisions with White Dwarfs and Neutron Stars) of White Dwarf stars in their paper?
Does this mean that Telemach implies that cosmic-ray produced black holes will accrete white dwarfs (never claimed to be superfluid) as a certainty (since the black holes and hence their collision / accretion cross sections), rather than the strong possibility that Giddings and Mangano claimed?
Professor Rossler — would it be possible to use Telemach to derive black hole sizes and accretion cross sections for the 7 TeV black holes that might be produced at the LHC, and also the more massive black holes produced by cosmic ray collisions in White Dwarf stars, so that I can plug these numbers into Giddings and Mangano’s equations forecasting accretion times for White Dwarfs?
Also, I can use these sizes to give a quantitative estimate of the time it will take the black holes that may be produced by the LHC to accrete the Earth (since the black holes discussed by most theories and used in their analyses are smaller than neutrinos and will take billions of years to accrete the Earth if they orbit within it).
Telemach must predict that these black holes are much larger if they will accrete the Earth within five years!
Peter
Yes, how big are the “Telemach- black holes”? :D
This has been on my mind for a while…Professor Rossler says that these black holes will be larger than current theory says, and this conclusion may drastically modify Giddings and Mangano’s calculations…in a direction that means that even White Dwarfs should not exist.
Also, Professor Rossler and Robert Houston keep saying that neutron Star cores are superfluid (and indeed they probably are), and thus protected from accretion by mini black holes…but what papers or textbooks (not science articles — real primary research or textbooks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) state that superfluidity will protect from accretion. And if the “Telemach” black holes are larger, will superfluidity still protect the Neutron Stars?
Robert Houston mentions that “Neutron Star cores are transparent to neutrinos since they’re superfluid, and the black holes will be smaller than neutrinos, so they won’t accrete,” but would Telemach predict these black holes to be larger?
Wouldn’t black holes smaller than neutrinos circle harmlessly through Earth for a billion years or so, doing no damage?
Can Professor Rossler (or Robert Houston) provide some hard numbers, and calculated sizes, and not just intuitive conjectures and quotes from popular science articles and Giddings and Mangano’s papers?
Peter
Peter, Rössler practically admitted that this 5 years are entirley his fabrication. If probed, he likes to call it a “rough estimate,” which is obviously based on the delusion that “estimating” is what random number generators do. He was also peddling different numbers in the past, like e.g. 50 years or 50 months if I’m not mistaken. After all “probably 5 years” is just his utterly dishonest way of stating that he has no idea how to calculate accretion rates, and that in his opinion nobody else does know that either.
And I don’t want anybody (especially Robert Houston) to complain that by making these comments and asking these entirely reasonable questions I am being “rude” or “a troll,” or a “cur,” which is Robert Houston’s favorite phrase. These are legitimate questions, asked politely.
So please do not criticize me for asking these reasonable questions.
Thank you in advance,
Peter
The black holes are not smaller than neutrinos as far as I know.
Sorry, Houston, that in your rush to defend Professor Rossler against trivial but in terms of bureaucratic and political pr, significant small errors in usage, idiom, grammar and syntax, you only demonstrate that you are also blind to the corrections that should be made. Moreover, 17 corrections is not “perfect” (there are more a good editor would make), though most stretches of his comprehensive statement are indeed in correct highly sophisticated terminology (thus making it worthwhile to correct the tiny errors enumerated).
That you cannot discern that ““THE COURT EXPRESSES THAT IT SHOULD BE POSSIBLE TO LET THE VARIOUS SAFETY ASPECTS, WHICH ALSO WERE THE SUBJECT OF THE TWO SAFETY REPORTS FROM THE YEARS 2003 AND 2008, BE DISCUSSED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF A “SAFETY CONFERENCE”” is not completely correct grammatically or idiomatically suggests that you are not a native speaker of good English. Are you by any chance an American?
Perhaps that is why you cannot distinguish between a typo and a mistake in expression, as in important/importance.
By the way you keep repeating your judgment that Professor Rossler’s latest full statement is complete and thus you believe (apparently) that it answers the CERN squad complaints here. Unfortunately, it is not and does not serve as such for professional journalists.
They key problem seems to be well expressed earlier on Osama Bin Cern at http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/05/osama-bin-cern
QUOTE:
TRMG on May 31, 2011 1:01 am
The world is still waiting for you to 1) admit a simple error in your Eq. (1), 2) correct that error, and 3) readjust your conclusions accordingly.
If you don’t want to believe me that your equation is false, try and derive it from the Schwarzschild metric.
Otto E. Rossler on May 31, 2011 1:41 am
Dear anonymous colleague: Science is not a matter of believing. You misunderstood my results. I never said that locally anything changes in the clock rate. The clock intervals’ enlargement “downstairs” compared to upstairs is a result that Einstein found, not me.
TRMG on May 31, 2011 2:04 am
Thanks for repeating your error. The intervals measured by the lower clock are ***smaller***, not larger compared to the clock above. That is why the lower twin stays younger.
I did not ask you to believe me this, but to check it for yourself by means of the Schwarzschild solution. But you seem to prefer ignorance.
Otto E. Rossler on May 31, 2011 3:25 am
Sweet. Of course are the individual intervals larger lower-down. That is why a shorter time there is worth a larger time upstairs. This is called redshift.
But I admire your steadfastness.
TRMG on May 31, 2011 3:46 am
“Of course are the individual intervals larger lower-down. That is why a shorter time there is worth a larger time upstairs. ”
Thanks again for cramming your whole confusion so flamboyantly into two consecutive sentences.
Stop embarrassing yourself and compare your Eq. (1) to the time dilation derived from the Schwarzschild metric. Will you?
Otto E. Rossler on May 31, 2011 5:16 am
I came from there in my paper on the gothic-R theorem.
Let me add that you have re-discovered that it is possible to THINK about these matters. This makes the two of us unique. The fact that we have opposite opinions does not count by comparison.
END QUOTE
Perhaps Houston you would like to explain to all how Rossler in this exchange and subsequent exchanges was able to show that TRMG had misunderstood what he was asserting, that TRMG would agree with what he meant if that was properly laid out, and that it was a valid premise in line with EInstein to base the rest of his theorizing on, including the Telemach theorem.
If you can do that, perhaps you would also like to explain the precise logic and conclusions of the Telemach theorem and how exactly it bears on the fear that the LHC will produce mBHs which might well swallow us all in a matter of five years.
This would help enormously in bringing what appears to be a continuing standoff here to a proper conclusion, since if your summary interpretation is accurate it should be agreed to by both parties, neither of whom appear capable of a proper final statement that can be quoted by interested parties such as journalists who look to disseminate Rossler’s view as credible and sustained in the face of informed criticism, which would be the key news supplied here in all this.
Or scotched, as the case may be.
Please do not bleat again that Professor Rossler’s fears are in line with others including your own and therefore should be accepted as based on valid physics theorizing. The two considerations are not the same.
Could I be misunderstanding? Could it be that Professor Rossler is predicting black holes of the same size (event horizon diameter as observed from the outside) as standard theories do, but that they initiate some kind of “chaotic self-organization” effects and act as if they are larger as far as accretion is concerned?
What is a “Kleiner Attractor?”
Anyway, even if the size (diameter of the event horizon??) is the same, this “Kleiner Attractor” makes the effective accretion radius much larger than standard theories predict — is this correct?
How would this affect accretion, especially of White Dwarfs? Or would the “self-organizing micro quasar” take long eoungh to form that the newly formed black hole would exit the White Dwarf before it has an effect?
Or are the Mini-Black-Holes small enough that they will take a billion years to form a self-organizing accretion system, since it will take too long for them to grab any atoms since they’re the size of neutrinos? Any quantitative calculation on this???
Can any quantitative predictions be made on this matter?
(Robbing) Peter (to Pay Paul)
The Kleiner –Attraktor is in first place a buzzword thrown in the debate by Rössler without any calculation, without giving a mechanism for accretion.
Two other things I’ve noticed:
1.) Professor Rossler in the above letter to the UN mentions loss of mass for dense objects — what does this mean? A lessening gravitational field, analogous to the loss of charge he mentions? If this is the case, wouldn’t it tend to prevent black holes from accreting at all, if their gravity disappears??? What about the orbital periods of binary neutron stars?
Or does it mean something else? Loss of inertial mass, but not gravity? (hurray! inertialess spaceflight at last!!)
Or something else? What else? Anything else seems meaningless…unless he means that only charge will be lost, not mass, unlike what he said in his letter to the UN.
2.) Heavy atomic nuclei are nearly as dense as some parts of Neutron Stars…in fact, dense enough that relativistic effects account for the gold color of gold, as I recall (I may be wrong on this…please tell me if I am!! or right!)
Therefore, Since Professor Rossler mentioned earlier that Neutron Stars have a substantial effect seen due to Telemach, shouldn’t these charge and mass loss effects have a measurable effect on heavy atomic nuclei? Even a small charge suppression effect would throw calculations of electron orbitals (and spectra) off, so this effect should have been noticed decades ago. I realize that atomic nuclei aren’t quite as dense as Neutron Stars, but you should see some effect, if this effect depends on density / escape velocity and not total mass!
And what about the effect of charge suppression on spectra of dense astronomical objects?
Has Professor Rossler made any quantitative predictions along these lines? I mean if Telemach is correct, these effects should be detectable…can Professor Rossler QUANTITATIVELY prove me wrong here, or will he just continue to vaguely hand wave and equivocate?
Come on Professor…where are the hard numbers to prove me wrong? SInce you developed Telemach, please show me why my conjectures are quantitatively incorrect! Give me calculations.
(Ripping off) Peter (to pay Paul, like the Politicians do!)
Here’s another conclusion that I am coming to, after reading a few of these threads…
First — “Anthony L” is doing a good job in trying to make some sense out of this whole brouhaha. He isn’t a moderator, but is trying to bring this to a conclusion. Keep up the good work, Anthony.
TRMG and Hanselll and Peter Howell are also doing a great job in trying to sort this out, too. Keep up the good work!
Robert Houston seems to be entirely unable to understand what Hanselll and TRMG are doing, even though it is obvious to anyone trained in the physical sciences (or Engineering). They may be abrupt, and sarchastic, but they are correct — properly defined variables and equations are not nitpicking, they are essential to turn intuition into something useful. Hansell and TRMG have my respect, though I do not know them personally.
You see, I don’t work for CERN, and I’m not a particle physicist! I live in the US, not Europe.
And I bet that after that last paragraph, Robert Houston will chime in and call me a troll (or a “Cur!), since he seems not to understand that thorough, precise, well defined calculations are the heart (and almost the soul) of physics.
In fact, this lack of understanding, as far as I am concerned, totally destroys his credibility as a commentator, as Anthony L is beginning to realize.
(just) Peter (this time)
Peter, you’ve condemned yourself as a fool, since you’ve directed a series of technical questions to someone whose “lack of understanding…totally destroys his credibility…” If this is your view, why bother asking me anything? Do your own research.
Just for the record, I never said that micro black holes are smaller than neutrinos, as Peter claimed. Furthermore, I never wrote that Dr. Rossler’s article is a complete treatment of the subject as Anthony claimed.. I wrote that in my view it was “clear and cogent.”
Good luck, Anthony, in your editorial efforts to transform Rossler’s article into a literary masterpiece. Perhaps we’ll read it in the New Yorker.
Mr. Houston — I directed these questions to Professor Rossler, not to you. Learn to read!
Why do the media not report on the Cologne Court’s call? Why does Nobel Laureate ‘t Hooft who spoke out against the critics not give a falsifiable reason to the press?
Wolfgang Rindler would certainly love to answer TRMG’s misunderstandings (the WM-diagram is part of the Rindler metric after rotation by 90 degrees). He is a very kind person as all good scientists are.
But we shouldnot prevent the UN Security Council who is ruling today — perhaps also on this matter? — from reminding us all that having a look is an act of love.
And again Rössler refuses to answer the serious questions.
Sorry, this should be no interruption of the discussion about mathematical topics in here, but as requested http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/49568-united-nations-he…h-required might be useful to create a presentation about this very serious issue with an intelligible sequence of words understandable by those brought up with a conventional education.
Rossler: are you seriously waiting for Rindler to come down here and rescue you from the mess you put yourself in with your “WM” diagram? I am afraid that the odds for that are about as large as the odds that the UN Security Council is busy today debating Telemach…
Please start behaving like a scientist and answer the question on the other thread: how can the “periodic signals” in your 1998 diagram:
http://oi55.tinypic.com/nnla3o.jpg
be “locally equivalent” to each other and have different lengths in local proper time?
“Good luck, Anthony, in your editorial efforts to transform Rossler’s article into a literary masterpiece. Perhaps we’ll read it in the New Yorker.”
Nice dodge, Houston, but the fact remains that your claims that Professor Rossler’s statement to the UN didn’t need editing in English to make a better impression was factually incorrect. In particular your claim that the Cologne judge’s statement was in perfect English was totally in error, since it needed an object noun for the word “expressed” etc.:
THE COURT EXPRESSES THAT IT SHOULD BE POSSIBLE TO LET THE VARIOUS SAFETY ASPECTS, WHICH ALSO WERE THE SUBJECT OF THE TWO SAFETY REPORTS FROM THE YEARS 2003 AND 2008, BE DISCUSSED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF A “SAFETY CONFERENCE
Of course it could simply be a change in the verb to “judges” or “believes”
You seem unwilling to accept the simple fact that whether Professor Rossler’s statement is soundly based in good physics, and whether it is in accord with other notable physicists, and whether it can be polished in very minor ways which do not change the evident meaning, are three separate considerations.
The last one does not affect the first two, and does not involve anything but meeting the prejudices of working editors..
What is really important and needed is a statement from you of your understanding of Professor Rossler’s decisive rejection of the CERN squad’s claim that he has founded his Telemach theorem on an equation which is not in accord with accepted physics.
You do believe that his response decisively dealt with their objection, don’t you? If so, please explain your understanding of how it works, since you have made many contributions here and elsewhere to a proper understanding of how weak CERN’s safety arguments have now become, contrary to their public stance.
You clearly are one of the very few who have actually read all this material for the last ten years well enough to pick out CERN’s misleading claims in this regard, and its own contradictions of them.
Presumably you have read Professor Rossler’s relevant works and posts through as carefully, and can be very helpful in laying out your understanding of the conclusion for this journalist and other interested parties who are observing this altercation here at Lifeboat, but who are not as well researched in the texts of the last decade as you are.
Or have you not yet observed Professor Rossler win the exchange? Is the issue still open in your mind?
” was factually incorrect.” should be “were”, sorry
AnthonyL wrote: “Mankind has indeed been to the moon […] I would not imagine that Professor Rossler would be interested in working on such a project..”.
You miss the point. It doesn’t matter if Roessler is interested in working on such a project; fact is that he would be incapable to work on such a project. My whole point was that dreaming of getting to the stars is easy, getting someone to the moon in reality, is hard works and requires skills – Roessler obviously lacks both.
Off to vacations, you all have fun fueling Roessler’s ego further.
Peter H.
So this could remind a layman to keep looking at the work of further responsible experts in hindsight to stars. So it makes physics outsiders wonder what the part of a sentence “it is designed to create conditions hotter than any star in our galaxy” in the 2nd sentence of the Introduction from the paper The Black Hole Case, by Eric E. Johnson, means. Please not understand this idea wrong, there is no need right now to provide outsiders with an insider information about it. At first, the outsiders should better do their own work of trying to search it up on the web. So they should better get busy to do some more demanded work, like searching the “Review of the safety of LHC collisions” for some similar information about this naturally unnatural condition. Sure, that requires expertise, we all know. And now, there will sure be someone somewhere who knows what to tell about it, like: but there is zero risk, because… And the press, they love to write something like “…a temperature 100,000 times hotter than the Sun”. Somehow, http://www.metro.co.uk/news/300947-worlds-biggest-ever-experiment-takes-place has the difference and the standard of insulting words to the critical reviewer too. So far, such press articles really look like the result of hard PR work, no outsider shall doubt that.
The great man again refuses to answer the serious questions :D
On the contrary, Anthony has always answered all serious questions.
The great man is Rössler.
This sounds crude but is not meant to be so in view of the running-out time for the planet:
There never was a serious question from the anonymous German gang of scientific lyers in support of the German-led LHC.
I apologize to anyone of them who is subjectively inncocent — but do insist again on a counterargument from the Albert-Einstein-Institute or Mr. ‘t Hooft.
Rössler, look a few comments above yours. There you can find some questions to the Telemacht bullshit, you never answered to.
Also there are still open questions to your equations and the derivations. You are the last person in the position to call other people lyers.
As I said…
There is only one liar here, and that’s you Roessler. Glad I am not German.
Peter H.
Who is Peter Howell?
what’s a “lyer”?
Rossler: Please start behaving like a scientist and answer a simple question: how can the “periodic signals” in your 1998 diagram:
http://oi55.tinypic.com/nnla3o.jpg
be “locally equivalent” to each other if they have have different lengths in local proper time?
“what’s a “lyer”?”
Someone notorious for his caustic criticism. ;-)
A picture that you can look at is coming — but please, reveal your face.
My answer was ment for PasserByAgain who like TRMG is sharp but misled.
Rossler: I am not going to “reveal my face”. As I already told you, I wouldn’t like my employer to know that I am wasting time (and, by extension, taxpayer money) in this circus instead of doing serious work.
Moreover, your (and Anthony’s) speculations about the qualifications, nationality, age, gender and even sexual orientation (?!) of your interlocutors are an endless source of amusement. It would kill half of the fun of this blog if you knew who we are…
So you have to get over it: ‘t Hooft and Hawking won’t come down here to discuss “Telemach”, you are stuck with a bunch of anonymous commenters. But luckily you don’t need to know our names to understand and answer a simple question about a diagram:
How can the “periodic signals” in your 1998 diagram:
http://oi55.tinypic.com/nnla3o.jpg
be “locally equivalent” to each other if they have different lengths in local proper time?
previous comments at
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/black-holes-are-different-%…ent-page-1
http://www.optioncockpit.com/DOCUMENTS/Telemach-in-Ridler-wedge.JPEG
Excellent: T_up = 1, T_down = 0.7, ergo T_up > T_down. In agreement with Einstein and stark contradiction with Telemach… What else do you think this picture proves?
P.S. I’ll be away for some time
“The explanation of (iii) and (iv) is that rest mass and charge (Kilogram and Coulomb) scale in strict parallelism (by Eqs.3,4).” ( http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/einsteins-equivale…t-l-m-.pdf“>“Telemach theorem” [4]) (page 5 of your pdf-file)
the charge of a proton is 1
the charge of an electron is 1
but their masses aren’t equal at all
so absolutly NO scaling in strict parallelism
!!!
thus your ‘TeLeMaCh’ is simply wrong.
lat least half a year ago, you already have had the chance to learn about this from an anonymous ‘Proton’:
2011/02/06 | 14:03 Quote: “Wir sahen ja schon, dass Ladung und Masse beim Positronium lokal in einem universellen Verhältnis stehen. Also ist Ch proportional zu M. Elektron: Ladung 1, Proton: Ladung 1.
Massenunterschied zwischen beiden: erheblich.
Wo ist jetzt die Proportionalität zwischen Masse und Ladung? – und übrigens: Positroniumatome entstehen bei der Paarbildung nicht. Die Teilchen fliegen auseinander.” ( http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2011/01/29/p…an_d#c5367 )
and 2011/02/06 | 15:26 Quote: “Die Ladung von Positronium ist übrigens, wenn schon, NULL.
Also ist Ladung Null proportional zur Masse.” ( http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2011/01/29/p…an_d#c5369 )
and 2011/02/07 | 19:13 Quote: “… Herr Rössler hat wohl auch zum Positronium nichts mehr zu sagen …” ( http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2011/01/29/p…an_d#c5390 )
Telemach says T is the period.
This is deliberate disinformation by an anonymous speaker of the German Albert-Einstein-Institute which has forfeited the right to use Einstein’s name.
“Who is Peter Howell?”
According to his postings a physicist / scientist better than you.
The name does not matter in science. Arguments do.
ah, the period again. :D
What again was the dimension of the period?
Àctually Telemach says nothing about the dimensions ot your T.
@webmaster: this is my second (and last) trial to place my comment — if you receive 2 comments of mine with similar content, then pls delete one of them. thanks!
————————————
@Otto Rossler,
Quote:
“The explanation of (iii) and (iv) is that rest mass and charge (Kilogram and Coulomb) scale in strict parallelism (by Eqs.3,4).”
(http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/einsteins-equivale…t-l-m-.pdf“ Telemach theorem” [4]) (page 5 of pdf-file)
the charge of a proton is 1
the charge of an electron is 1
but their masses aren’t equal at all
so absolutly NO scaling in strict parallelism
!!!
thus your ‘TeLeMaCh’ is simply wrong.
at least half a year ago, you already have had the chance to learn about this from an anonymous ‘Proton’:
2011/02/06 | 14:03 Quote: “Wir sahen ja schon, dass Ladung und Masse beim Positronium lokal in einem universellen Verhältnis stehen. Also ist Ch proportional zu M. Elektron: Ladung 1, Proton: Ladung 1.
Massenunterschied zwischen beiden: erheblich.
Wo ist jetzt die Proportionalität zwischen Masse und Ladung? – und übrigens: Positroniumatome entstehen bei der Paarbildung nicht. Die Teilchen fliegen auseinander.” ( http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2011/01/29/p…an_d#c5367 )
and 2011/02/06 | 15:26 Quote: “Die Ladung von Positronium ist übrigens, wenn schon, NULL.
Also ist Ladung Null proportional zur Masse.” ( http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2011/01/29/p…an_d#c5369 )
and 2011/02/07 | 19:13 Quote: “… Herr Rössler hat wohl auch zum Positronium nichts mehr zu sagen …” ( http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2011/01/29/p…an_d#c5390 )
Rössler: “Telemach says T is the period. ”
So, what do you think the picture proves about periods?
It is nice to hear from an old friend.
Telemach of course describes strict proportionality between mass and charge for every type of particle and every type of charge in accord with Einstein covariance.
So this is a misunderstanding — but anyway thanks for trying to help.
Dear TRMG:
Tell me who you are and I tell you what you did not understand
- or pretend not to understand
as I unfortunately have to add here since you left my expressed fear that you are acting dishonestly unaddressed to my chagrin (because you know the rewards of original thinking which fact makes me care for you much more than for the rest of the anonymous LHC defense squad).
So, please, tell us why you cannot reveal your identity so we can get a feel for your motivation in your fiercely trying not to understand.
Always the same. Not a single scientific argument but complaining about unimportant stuff like the anonymity.
Ridiculous.
Rossler: let’s put the question another way. When you now write “0.7″, what are the units? I mean, 0.7 what?
- Seconds of local proper time?
- Centimetres on the paper of your drawing?
- Rosslerons?
You undoubtedly know that the answer is unit periods of local proper time, dear anonymous colleague.
Thats meaningless unless you give a dimension.
Rossler: very well, then what do we see in your latest picture?
T_up = 1 “unit period of local proper time“
T_down = 0.7 “unit periods of local proper time”
Ergo, T_up > T_down, in agreement with Einstein and in contradiction with Telemach. What else do you think this picture proves?
If the German-led assault on the planet is not addressed by the German-led UN Security Council:
Is there not the risk that this fact becomes public even though the planet’s media are disallowed to report?
This website is the modern samizdat press.
I pledge that the 100.000 dollars found on the Wailing Wall be used for a campaign to save Israel (and with it the world): Thank you, Wall!
Can no one help poor PassingByAgain?
Prof. Roessler: why not saying what you think is wrong in his arguments? You said “…is unit periods of local proper time…!”, so PassingByAgain is absolutely accurate in his statement. If you see this differently, please tell us why, otherwise every scientist on this planet, in fact, every human being understands that your Telemach is plain wrong.
Peter H.
you might help, by answering the questions
I meant Rossler of course
Where are the longer full periods, upstairs or downstairs, dear bystanders and bypassers? And what does Telemach say?
Why this charade?
This question makes no sene at all, it just shows you have not understood the meaning of “local proper time”. It is almost too funny to have this discussion with a Professor — I thought this stops with undergraduate students. Isn’t there anyone in your university’s physics department who is willing to teach you some basics? And have a stop at the math department too please.
Peter H.
In a potentially infinitely long bijection between two periodic lines, there is a well-defined sense in which locally equal subintervals are mapped upon each other. One class of subintervals is longer than the other. You are allowed to venture a guess which one: The one from which the other cuts out the shorter pieces (O.7), or the one from which the other cuts out the longer pieces (1.0)?
Every medium of the world is encouraged to report on this dialogue at the feet of the Wailing Wall.
(Hint: The class with the shorter — 0.7 — pieces has the longer subintervals.)
Rossler: you are contradicting yourself for the 100th time. How can the
“subintervals“
be
“locally equal“
if
“one is longer than the other“
in
“unit periods of local proper time“
?
What anybody can see in your picture, is that the upper “subinterval”, whose length is 1 “unit period of local proper time” (as you kindly explained at 6:55 am Lifeboat time), is *longer* than the lower “subinterval”, whose length is 0.7 “unit periods of local proper time”. This is consistent with Einstein’s equation and in contradiction with your ramblings above.
The fact that certain posters here like to remain anonymous can have only one reason: if they put their real names they fear being subjected to ridicule, possibly on their lack of qualifications, possibly on their willingness to engage Rossler, possibly on the silliness (in the Monty Python sense) of their real names, who knows? One can only speculate.
But none of these reasons seem convincing. Why would intelligent men/women standing up for conventional thinking against a heretic fear putting down their real names? Surely it cannot be that they are being paid, though one wonders how they have the time if they are hardworking physicists sitting in front of monitor screens in Geneva?
Gentleman, ladies, if you cannot come out, as the gays put it, can you not safely tell us what the fear is that prevents you from doing so? Why is it preferable to remain in the closet, as it were? Are you not proud of standing up for good physics, as you believe?
Even if you are merely computer nerds sitting in the backrooms of banks with nothing to do as your algorithms take ever larger sums from the pockets of the poor and the middle class, why be shy? There is considerable credit in being a nerd who can talk sense in advanced nuclear physics, even if it is the most imaginary sector in physics at present after the metacosmology of black holes neutron stars etc beyond the clear visibility of all but the Hubble.
Since Robert H is apparently blind to the needs of correct English, which is a very important factor in impressing the hacks who run the editorial pages of dead tree publications such as the lead galleon of the armada which sails in the cause of truth in print, the New York Times, I hereby append a properly edited version of Professor Rossler’s statement above for his and Houston’s consideration, even if he doesnt accept all my solutions to what is sometimes puzzling in the original.
I have tried to make it boldface but have no access to the commands for smiley faces etc which apparently others can see who do not use Google Chrome.
———————————————————————————–
Black Holes Are Still a Danger at the LHC, the UN must act
by Otto E. Rossler, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Tubingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 8, 72076 Tubingen, F.R.G.
There have been new developments in gravitational theory beginning in 2005, which have changed the previously accepted scientific picture of black holes. On the basis of these results, the currently running experiment at the Large Hadron Collider outside Geneva, run by CERN , which is designed to produce artificial black holes of very low velocity, has ceased to be innocuous. The experimentally hoped for “mini black holes,” (1) are more likely to arise, (2) will not evaporate, (3) are undetectable by the machine, (4) will in part get stuck inside the earth and (5) will grow there exponentially, so as to shrink the earth to 2 cm in perhaps 5 years’ time.
Hence a re-appraisal of the safety of the experiment is necessary before it can be allowed to go on. Since CERN, the international body which administrates the LHC, is unresponsive, I have appealed to the UN Security Council to intervene.(July 30, 2011)
The previously overlooked new fact in gravitation theory looks simple enough in terms of physics: it is that the rest mass-energy of a particle decreases with increasing gravity. To wit, on a neutron star on which gravity is so high that clocks tick almost twice as slowly, every particle has only half the outside rest mass without this fact being locally detectable.
This mass-change result represents the main content of a 2007 paper accepted for publication by the journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals [1]. The same result was independently derived two years later by Richard J. Cook of the Air Force Academy [2]. It has also now been obtained on the highest level of technical sophistication by a specialist who wants to remain anonymous while insisting that all credit go to the late Arthur Komar [3]. A maximally simple derivation finally is my “Telemach theorem” [4].
Many predictions pertinent to particle collisions are overthrown as a consequence of this mass-change result. Designing new experiments adapted to it will take several years. All of this is nothing more than ordinary scientific progress, taking its due time to be tested and become mainstream wisdom.
As Fate would have it, however, this new result possesses more than merely academic interest. A machine that was designed to produce miniature black holes – the Large Hadron Collider of CERN – is suddenly revealed as the most dangerous endeavor of humankind ever. In a manner familiar from similar examples in the past, the scientific community has been sluggish in recognizing the significance of the situation.
In this case, science transcends its usual boundaries by spilling over into everyday life and politics. An experiment thought to be a purely academic exercise (save for some theoretically unexplored features of quark-gluon plasmas my colleague Walter Wagner has drawn attention to) acquires a menacing character, because the hoped-for experimental outcome includes a radically new feature: miniature black holes.
“Black holes” were so named by John Wheeler in 1968 [5] who had, it must be acknowledged, inherited a certain impish humor from his mentor, Einstein. Three years later, Johnny (as his friends sometimes called him) added in his joking manner that “a black hole has no hair” — (the allusion was to a Berlin pop song from the 1920s, “Say is it true that the frog at the butt has no hair?”) – “except for three.” The remaining three hairs were: mass, angular momentum and charge [6].
Three years later, Stephen Hawking [7] described a fourth hair brought in by quantum mechanics, namely Hawking evaporation. The latter property would – he argued – drain away mass-energy, slowly emaciating every black hole until it would eventually explode (“evaporate”) on having grown maximally small – as small as the tiny black holes hoped-for at CERN.
Now, almost 4 decades on, two of the remaining four hairs have proved to be clipped (charge and evaporation). This fundamentally altered situation logically requires a re-evaluation of the safety equation of the LHC experiment, since the most looked for fruits of the experiment (mini black holes [8]) have become undetectable by detectors designed on the basis of the overhauled (????? original?????) theory.
This situation represents a setback for a cherished world-class experiment which is also the most expensive in history, and serious resistance from the scientific community is predictable, even preprogrammed.
This new situation represents a sufficient reason to trouble the world’s Security Council because the experiment has become drastically unsafe. The undetectable miniature black holes that it is hoped will be generated at a rate of one per second [8] will, unfortunately, not be innocuous.
To evaluate the totally changed situation, a “scientific safety conference” was proposed by me and others in 2008, with Prince Charles, widely esteemed for his “green thumb” approach to the environmental problems of the planet, in the chair.
The whole issue was initially approached in a hopeful, lighter tone. [9]. But the harsh logic of real-life constraints struck. Would a public safety assessment not cause unnecessary delays and, what is more, drain away valuable public confidence? One member state of CERN – Austria – even announced it would leave the international body, although it reluctantly returned after closed-door admonitions.
It goes without saying that the most awesome experiment of history – involving thousands of physicists, the crème de la crème of their field, and the most influential governments of the globe, participating either as members or as accredited observers who must also contribute – cannot easily change course. Should it really do so only because a new chapter of future textbook results has opened up?
Any safety assessment is a double-edged endeavor. What it achieves in terms of added rationality, it jeopardizes in terms of changing CERN’s plans for future operations. Small wonder that there has been little enthusiasm to comply with such a request. Pascal’s risk-assessment logic – a gigantic risk deserves absolute priority – is predictably hard to enforce within the reality of a tightly budgeted multinational endeavor.
Does this mean that everything is now in perfect order? From the point of view of bureaucracy, the answer is yes, from the point of view of safety, the answer is no. For the risk that our earth will be eaten inside out by the first sufficiently slowly moving artificial mini black hole (which I anticipate to be produced in a matter of ten days [8]) I estimate to be as high as roughly 1:6 – in other words, the chances of catastrophe are equal to “Russian roulette”.
My calculations yield one added feature: the remaining time for the planet is of the order of 5 years [10]. The shockingly low estimate for our remaining time stems from the fact that an independent physical theory – chaos theory – happens to predict that every resident miniature black hole will be turned into an exponentially growing “miniquasar” [10].
Thirdly, the final safety argument offered by CERN to the world in early 2008 – the continued existence of neutron stars in the sky – has been vitiated by another independent physical theory, quantum mechanics [11].
Thus, three totally disjoint sciences (relativity, chaos and quantum) here all independently refuse to give the all-clear signal that might be expected from at least one of them on the basis of common sense. A “trap” has been set for humankind by Nature, as it were.
It can be noted that according to my calculations, after the experiment inadvertently got shrunk in half in terms of energy, following an early technical accident in September 2008, the probability of Earth being transformed into a 2-cm mini-quasar was cut in half, too – from 16 to 8 percent. But this still dreadful level will be reached once the experiment has attained its maximum luminosity or cumulative number of collisions.
Currently, CERN has reached one ninth of the originally planned luminosity and is scheduled to reach one third by the end of the next three months [12]. If the already incurred risk thus is 0.8 percent (8÷9 = 0.8), this means that more than a quarter of the danger of 8 percent to be reckoned with will be realized by the end of October 2011.
It goes without saying that every single day that the experiment can be halted earlier for the purpose of re-evaluation is worthwhile. The single eventually lethal collision event could happen on the very last day before the conference starts.
Nothing more is being asked than for an outside panel independent of CERN to take a second look at the serious safety doubts raised by me and other theorists, for I am not alone is assessing the LHC as a very dangerous endeavor.
A court in Germany – the “Cologne Administrative Court” – before whom CERN was standing as a defendant on January 27, 2011 – concluded its opinion, after stating that it could not override an earlier ruling by the German supreme court, with the following sentence, still unreported in the media:
“The court is of the opinion that it should be possible to discuss the various safety aspects of the LHC, which have already been the subject of internal CERN safety reports in 2003 and in 2008, at an external safety conference” (13)
.
I am aware that as a mere citizen of the world I have no official status in contacting the UN Security Council on this matter. But I have no doubt that I stand here representing the whole scientific community and every citizen and country of the planet in saying that as long as any doubts as to the safety of the LHC exist, which potentially involve the most dire consequences ever envisaged for humanity and the planet, we need to take a second look
Therefore, I repeat to the Security Council of the UN or any other institution which will take responsibility, Please, dear Highest Delegates of Planet Earth, endorse the request made by the Cologne Administrative Court by declaring your support for a safety conference on the current state of the Geneva collider, the theories that predict what will happen as its energy escalates, and what measures can be taken to guard against disaster.
LET US TAKE A SECOND LOOK IMMEDIATELY.
For J.O.R.
References
————————————————-
I would actually suggest to Professor Rossler that he edit out the jocular references to the butt of a toad etc since a threat of the end of the world leaves little room for light hearted jokes in appealing to the top level of officialdom in the world, even though a sense of humor is often one of the virtues of the independent thinker and original mind and one of the lacks of the typical hive mind.
But I believe I have edited it for acceptability in the context.
Thank you, Anthony L, for editing and making a new version from the above article’s report. Sorry, it really has gotten much perceivable that hundreds of comments posted to the continuing blog articles related to particle physics are written in a kind of dialect that should be called MostPhysicistsMathematics. That might be such a dialect the great majority of English-speaking readers has not learned to understand enough. So far, the main language has been English and not MostPhysicistsMathematics. So please, dear commenters, be so friendly to add more credibility to a kind of dialect that should be called IndependentScientistsMathematics or continue posting more comments in some more common English that, at least, the majority of Lifeboat members have learned to understand enough.
Anthony, shut up. You are adding noise to this discussion with your walls of text, and distracting Rossler from answering the questions. Now I have to re-post my latest post:
Rossler: “In a potentially infinitely long bijection between two periodic lines, there is a well-defined sense in which locally equal subintervals are mapped upon each other. One class of subintervals is longer than the other. You are allowed to venture a guess which one: The one from which the other cuts out the shorter pieces (O.7), or the one from which the other cuts out the longer pieces (1.0)?”
You are contradicting yourself for the 100th time.
How can the
“subintervals”
be
“locally equal”
if
“one is longer than the other”
in
“unit periods of local proper time”
?
What anybody can see in your picture,
http://www.optioncockpit.com/DOCUMENTS/Telemach-in-Ridler-wedge.JPEG
is that the upper “subinterval”, whose length is 1 “unit period of local proper time” (as you kindly explained at 6:55 am Lifeboat time), is *longer* than the lower “subinterval”, whose length is 0.7 “unit periods of local proper time”. This is consistent with Einstein’s equation and in contradiction with your ramblings above.
PassingBy objects to my comment above as interfering with Rossler answering his endlessly repeated and simplistic objection to Rossler’s theory, but surely the truth is that PassingBy’s command of English and ability to make a full statement of his objections to Rossler’s physics are too limited to successfully gain serious treatment from Rossler, or the kind of respect and interest in his getting an answer which would win the attention of other posters here and get anybody to step aside for his/her inarticulate efforts to win Rossler’s reply.
In fact the physics he is referring to is on a different thread, and this thread here is under the post which I have edited for Rossler to ensure that it gains the respect it deserves from the UN or whichever official body he is trying to get to open a fully justified enquiry into the risks of the LHC revving up to 7Tev.
Fully justified is the appropriate phrase, because PassingBy’s endless bleating that Rossler is not paying enough attention to his single point, and answering it in the manner he deserves, tends to obscure the fact that CERN has peddled either false safety arguments or ones that have been subsequently renounced or been enfeebled for twelve years.
For that reason it may well be helpful for me to post more lengthy comments here on the points raised by Rossler’s post and thus make it even harder for PassingBy to gain attention than he already experiences in writing these constant applications for an answer on this, the wrong thread.
Then possibly PassingBy would switch his abysmally spotty and sketchy chalenge to Rossler to the appropriate thread, and stop trying to prevent readers who are interested in the main issue from seeing where the overridingly important matter of the future existence of the world stands.
Where it stands is that whether or not PassingBy can with his fellow foxhounds catch Rossler out in a detail which he has already corrected is ultimately irrelevant to the big issue because Rossler is but one of several physicists of immense reputation such as Plaga, Kent etc who have pointed out what every intelligent observer knows.
Which is:
There are several serious lines of doubt about the LHC’s safety which need to be addressed by a safety conference which is external to CERN and capable of objective analysis, which can act to resolve those doubts if possible and to suggest measures to increase LHC safety.
Thus the rather pathetic efforts of PassingBy to nail Rossler on something he has already renounced, and to do it hiding behind anonymity on the Internet, are the least of all the concerns which responsible people feel in this affair.
That is, everyone except PassingBy and his friends, who could easily achieve what they want anyway by making a full statement of where they feel Rossler has proved that his physics is ill founded, and show the world why.
Unfortunately it seems that this little collection of computer nerds or sycophantic graduate students or whomever these anonyms are trying to place a spanner in the works of those trying to win some official response to justified doubts about the LHC lack the verbal and logical skills to do it.
So we face an endless vista of inadequate posts by PassingBY and his colleagues on the wrong thread until he reaches a conclusion, which looks as if it will take a very long time.
In other words, please shut up, PasingBY, on this thread, since your point belongs elsewhere.
Sorry, whomever should be whoever, above.
PasserByAgain should have kept his mouth shut.
Is there really no one in the scientific community who can still think?
Then the planet could not be saved at this late hour.
Roessler, you are the stupid one here, you don’t understand anything about physics!
Anthony, you must have been distracted. Rossler posted a new diagram in *this* thread (Otto E. Rossler on August 5, 2011 3:40 am) and even tried to discuss it here, before he realized that he’s unable to pull himself out of his contradictions. The other thread you are referring to has not been updated in days. But now you that have spouted more and more pages of useless preaching, I have to repeat my question again:
Rossler: “In a potentially infinitely long bijection between two periodic lines, there is a well-defined sense in which locally equal subintervals are mapped upon each other. One class of subintervals is longer than the other. You are allowed to venture a guess which one: The one from which the other cuts out the shorter pieces (O.7), or the one from which the other cuts out the longer pieces (1.0)?”
You are contradicting yourself for the 100th time.
How can the
“subintervals”
be
“locally equal”
if
“one is longer than the other”
in
“unit periods of local proper time”
?
What anybody can see in your picture,
http://www.optioncockpit.com/DOCUMENTS/Telemach-in-Ridler-wedge.JPEG
is that the upper “subinterval”, whose length is 1 “unit period of local proper time” (as you kindly explained at 6:55 am Lifeboat time), is *longer* than the lower “subinterval”, whose length is 0.7 “unit periods of local proper time”. This is consistent with Einstein’s equation and in contradiction with your ramblings above.
And BTW, “PasserByAgain should have kept his mouth shut” is the cutest counterargument I’ve ever read ;-) Answer the questions or admit that you can’t.
Quote: “What anybody can see in your picture, is that the upper “subinterval”, whose length is 1 “unit period of local proper time” (as you kindly explained at 6:55 am Lifeboat time), is *longer* than the lower “subinterval”, whose length is 0.7 “unit periods of local proper time”. This is consistent with Einstein’s equation and in contradiction with your ramblings above.”
Is there really no one able to contradict (given that DESY is watching and the AEI is watching, and KET is watching, and CERN is watching)?
Roessler, please bring us ONE physicist who is sharing your interpretation. Just one. Otherwise you better be quiet. Every scientist here agrees with PassingBy! Even your co-author Prof. Parisi disagrees completely with your view! You really think everyone except you is dumb?
Prof. Peter Howell
I do only now see PasserBy’s comment above which interloped. It is interesting that he cannot visualize anything. Can you?
Please, speak up. The planet is waiting for you to take heart.
Peter (again I see your’s only now): You are being asked to think yourself. Ask one of your students to volunteer. I apologize that what I drew and said is apparently new. Although, I am sure, not to the inventor of the diagram.
Rossler: I suspect there are two reasons why nobody contradicts the paragraph of mine that you quote above:
1) hardly anybody is watching. In fact, you should just be grateful to me, Peter, Hansel and TRMG for fueling your delusion that somebody still gives a shit about your ramblings.
2) anybody who watches, does indeed see the same thing I see (which is summarized in the quoted paragraph).
So, can you now please finally answer the question? How can your “subintervals” be “locally equal” if they have different lengths in local proper time?
Dear PasserBy:
I know you are sincere, only just not seeing what is lying before your eyes. And your modesty — that no one were watching here — honors you, too, but you forget the big dimension of this dialog, not just in the now. This is a record that will entail many comments in the remaining future. So you do have your unique merits, the most important one being your honesty.
(It would be still nicer if you had more courage — but you are way above ‘t Hooft, for example — I mean: if you were also playing with an open visor. That would greatly enhance the impact of your voice. But this is only an aside.)
I repeat my quote of yours: “What anybody can see in your picture, is that the upper ‘subinterval’, whose length is 1 ‘unit period of local proper time’ (as you kindly explained at 6:55 am Lifeboat time), is *longer* than the lower ‘subinterval’, whose length is 0.7 ‘unit periods of local proper time’. This is consistent with Einstein’s equation and in contradiction with your ramblings above.”
I say: The lower subintervals are longer, since an 0.7 fraction of theirs is mapped consecutively onto unit time intervals upstairs.
This is what Einstein said and this is what Telemach says: that time flows more slowly — with seconds occupying more time on an upper clock face — there.
It is very strange that you cannot see this. And also very interesting since it shows something very important about the current state of physics thinking. I do not blame you in person at all.
It is only a tragedy — the gravest of history -: that “thinking” in the traditional snse is no longer possible which, as is well known, works only in dialog. But may be we can still converge in this dialog?
Can you please explain your reasoning in a few more words? Thank you for taking this trouble.
Rossler: “you forget the big dimension of this dialog, not just in the now. This is a record that will entail many comments in the remaining future.”
Yes, of course. When you are officially recognized as The Savior Of The Earth, this dialogue will be in taught to children in schools. Can you really not see how pathetic you sound?
“I say: The lower subintervals are longer, since an 0.7 fraction of theirs is mapped consecutively onto unit time intervals upstairs.
This is what Einstein said and this is what Telemach says: that time flows more slowly – with seconds occupying more time on an upper clock face – there. It is very strange that you cannot see this. (…) Can you please explain your reasoning in a few more words?”
I can certainly waste a few more words to repeat that you misunderstand the basic concepts of relativity. I see perfectly what you mean, the problem is that it’s a load of crap. We are back to the “longer seconds” nonsense…
Look, we have a light of ray bouncing up and down between two levels. The interval T_up between two bounces measured in the local time upstairs is longer (i.e. it contains more seconds) than the interval T_down between two bounces measured in the local time downstairs. Your problem is that you think that the intervals T_up and T_down are somehow “locally equivalent” — whatever that means in your head — therefore if T_up = 1 second and T_down = 0.7 seconds it must be because the seconds downstairs are longer than the second upstairs.
As I said, this is a load of crap. Spacetime is curved by the Earth gravitational field, and as a consequence the path in spacetime between two bounces is simply *longer* upstairs than downstairs. In other words, the interval upstairs contains more “units of local proper time” (i.e., seconds) than the interval downstairs, therefore the two intervals are *not* equivalent.
And please don’t even start with the “bijection” story: it might sound sciencey to you, but in no way does it mean that the two intervals T_up and T_down occupy the same amount of (absolute?) time. The key of your misunderstanding is your sentence “with seconds occupying more time on an upper clock face”. That’s not right, a second of local proper time occupies exactly one second of local proper time, both upstairs and downstairs.
Happy now?
Quote: “The interval T_up between two bounces measured in the local time upstairs is longer (i.e. it contains more seconds) than the interval T_down between two bounces measured in the local time downstairs.”
So you agree, my little devil.
Are you idiot or what? Nobody ever put that statement in doubt, T_up > T_down is just the consequence of Einstein’s gravitational time dilation, and it’s in contradiction with eq.(1) of Telemach. The statement of yours that *nobody* agrees with (because it’s patently nonsense) is that “the seconds downstairs are longer than the seconds upstairs”. This nonsensical statement follows from your weird misconception that T_up and T_down are “locally equivalent” to each other. This discussion is going nowhere, we are at the same stage as six weeks ago.
Now the true problem in this discussion should already be recognizable, even it is hard for the majority of physicists to take a look outside their accustomed mathematical sphere. So far, the countries who were financially and politically supportive to particle physics have expected to gain more advantages like scientific progress, financial profits, economic growth, political power, better health and security, etc., from the development of new technological matter as a result of research experiments. Eventually, those who are commenting in here who are not only unfriendly once or twice against the supporters of this very important security issue, but even more, are likely in a group of individuals who are afraid of loosing something that seems quite important to their society. Whatever they are afraid of loosing, it can most likely be their reputation as experts in their field, their income as such, a pleasant occupation, governmental funding, or something else in connection with the above mentioned advantages. From their point of view, such benefits and the above mentioned advantages seem to become unsettled when higher security measures are being applied to particle experiments. Certainly, those commenting so unfriendly do not like to speak about the very important issues that should be discussed: the safety conference, the way to apply alterations to the LHC without taking away the chance of successful research, and the governmental supporters that should be advised to agree to the required safety requirements. Sure, those comments about the relevance of minor mathematical details are exploiting an independent scientist’s personal interest of solving tricky mathematical problems to keep him busy with the wrong mathematical issues within the wrong time at the wrong site. If they want a different mathematical solution after all these long discussions over months now, then this should be changed to a discussion without biased opinions about physics together with a valid interest in making a change to the currently planned experimentation at the LHC. Please remember, those who are gaining huge amounts of financial funding from governmental investors in different countries to enable very costly research experiments got the media under control, so their very harsh resistance on this blog was quite as expected. If such resistance is not the outcome of great deficits in mental- and emotional health, what else do you believe triumphs over the last hope for sparing all sentient living beings the final hour?
@Robomoon, please spell “losing” correctly, this “loosing” business is the most ignorant neologism on the Web and must be stamped out before it gets into the dictionary.
@PassingBy, sorry I was just teasing. But as robomoon seems to agree, an antagonistic style only looks makes you look young and not motivated by genuine truth seeking, and thus induces disrespect of your authority and the value of studying what you are saying. Also, you have no right to it, since Rossler has always been civil, as is correct in scientific debate.
Is the above rather full diatribe minus the insults your final position that we should all study? If not please accept your own statement that this discussion is going nowhere against Rossler’s butterfly/bee responses and write out a straightforward summary as civilized people do in a debate.
After all, if Rossler cannot respond satisfactorily to it then you will have won your point, at least to your own satisfaction, and conveyed it to the audience, which can be bigger than you think on the Web.
Also, busy hacks such as myself can then quote it.
Of course, writing it all out properly in summary will reveal to all whether it is a genuine problem for Rossler or not.
“I am not going to “reveal my face”. As I already told you, I wouldn’t like my employer to know that I am wasting time (and, by extension, taxpayer money) in this circus instead of doing serious work.” PassingByAgain
This is a valid reason for anonymity, I admit, but sadly, it is a confession that you are cheating the taxpayer out of what he/she expects would be your full attention to your work, whatever it is, in exchange for your pay.
If that work is related to CERN, as seems likely, it then suggests that you are not only prepared to diddle the taxpayer put of full value for the salary he/she pays you, but also prepared to blast ahead at the LHC regardless of the possible cosmologically superimpressive consequences of your part time work.
In other words, your life is already corrupted by at least two dimensions of irresponsibility to your fellow beings.
Does this not compound the impression that your argument against Rossler is not worth examining in detail, surmounting the serious obstacle of your inability to express it in clear summary terms, because it is littered with youthful outbursts of “idiot” &c and is so uncooperative
and disrespectful in spirit that it is not driven out of any sense of responsibility towards your fellow scientists and the rest of humanity to seek the best truth you can find on such a very important issue as the Fate of the Earth, but to harass Rossler and prevent him from being taken seriously by officials and politicians who might be inclined to pause the juggernaut progress of the LHC towards maximum energy and luminosity?
I’d say that it would make perfect sense to reach that conclusion, in view of the tendency of human beings to be consistent in their behavior as regards their sense of responsibility towards their fellows, and the above would make three consistent exhibitions of irresponsibility in your case.
But of course you are obviously young in spirit if not in flesh, a delightful character trait of many whiz kids and superannuated whiz kids, a category that includes all bright physicists.
Delightful, that is, unless one is a member of the human race whose fate and that of his/her children may well hang on your sense of responsibility towards others.
If all this moral talk is over your head, perhaps you should confer with your wife and children if any, and if none, your mother, and ask their opinion about these matters.
Women with children often have a more immediate sense of realism than young or aging whiz kid physicists, I believe, particularly in regard to whether they fancy disappearing prematurely down a black hole.
“Moreover, your (and Anthony’s) speculations about the qualifications, nationality, age, gender and even sexual orientation (?!) of your interlocutors are an endless source of amusement. It would kill half of the fun of this blog if you knew who we are…” PassingByAgain
“We”? So you admit, rather compromisingly, PassingB, that you are a squad of colleagues embarked on a shared mission?
Tut tut. Seems my (and others) “amusing” speculations hit the nail on the head. And since we had no information on this other than your group performance here, my conclusion re the compromising emotional impetus of your exchanges with Rossler — see above post, third category of irresponsibility — is confirmed.
It is a sad thing when scientists of any ilk behave like political animals rather than truthseekers, and thus betray their vocation. But physicists? Doubly sad.
Blah, blah, blah. A few more pages of useless blather hoping to mask the fact that Rossler is unable to discuss his own diagram. Now I’ll have to post again the relevant part of my earlier post:
(PassingByAgain on August 6, 2011 7:09 am)
(…)
Look, we have a light of ray bouncing up and down between two levels. The interval T_up between two bounces measured in the local time upstairs is longer (i.e. it contains more seconds) than the interval T_down between two bounces measured in the local time downstairs. Your problem is that you think that the intervals T_up and T_down are somehow “locally equivalent” – whatever that means in your head – therefore if T_up = 1 second and T_down = 0.7 seconds it must be because the seconds downstairs are longer than the second upstairs.
As I said, this is a load of crap. Spacetime is curved by the Earth gravitational field, and as a consequence the path in spacetime between two bounces is simply *longer* upstairs than downstairs. In other words, the interval upstairs contains more “units of local proper time” (i.e., seconds) than the interval downstairs, therefore the two intervals are *not* equivalent.
(…)
Anthony, robomoon, please contribute *on the physics*, or else stop adding noise to this discussion.
This discussion has shifted towards a greater problem: politics. This http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/08/the-german-bomb-at-last seems to show where the greatest errors are. Please do not abuse the educationally higher authority of mathematics in a way relevant to the majority of physicists instead of the majority in our world.
Oh yeah, who cares about mistaken equations and nonsensical statements in Rossler’s “theorem”? “Politics” is the greater problem! Thanks robomoon for reminding us that ;-)
Previous comments at
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/black-holes-are-different––-a-report-made-to-the-un-security-council/comment-page-2
Previous comments in hindsight to our demand for politicians from different countries working on a law against the funding of potentially destructive research experiments.
“Blah, blah, blah. A few more pages of useless blather” and “noise” is how PassingBy measures the careful posts above on his lack of morality and social responsibility, let alone ability to worry about the Fate of the Earth, I wrote above nailing him for a postadolescent whiz kid posting on the wrong thread about some alleged basic misapprehension of Rossler on simple Einsteinian physics, which is prima facie unlikely for a well established thinker associated for some time with a good university, and which he appears to have already dealt with.
Thank you PassingBy for providing further striking evidence of your evidently sociopathic level of lack of concern for your fellow beings. This is precisely the issue at this thread, as you seem not to have understood even though it was expressed in very clear English.
Your issue applies elsewhere. Meanwhile can we recommend an expert psychoanalyst or priest (according to your preference, given your apparently religious faith in the LHC and CERN) in your neighborhood, if you would care to let us know what that is?
We mean, to help cure your lack of conscience?
Please remove the first “above” above, sorry
Previouis comments at http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/black-holes-are-different-%…ment-89035 or insert page-2 instead of page-1 for page 2. This is page-3 but it is current so just click the headline for it.
Previously
lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/black-holes-are-different-%E2%80%93-a-report-made-to-the-un-security-council/comment-page-1#comment-89035 etc
to display it in full, sorry.
Pray, Anthony, where would Rossler have “dealt with” the criticism? Can you point out the specific post? About the rest of your drivel, I simply don’t care.
There are many comments from you and further critics who have posted mathematics, combined with some disrespectful language that provoked to continue discussions in an unfriendly way, repeated an incongruous claim that a calculation by Prof. Rossler seemed to be incompatible with Einstein’s. But it makes us happy there are friendly activists — some listed at http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/08/the-german-bomb-at-last#comment-89021 — who were also helping to understand the important safety issues. Those should be, for e.g., a discussion about historical events and Einstein, just to encourage today’s urgent demand for an international political collaboration in terms of safety measures against inappropriately great funding of potentially destructive experiments.
Sorry, “that are repeating…” instead of “repeated…” to correct some grammar above.
May I note that I have discovered that to get the previous comments all one has to do is add “/comment-page1” or “/comment-page2” to the above url, which just shows the 10 comments over 100. You dont need the numbers after that phrase.
Anyone interested in following this long thread in its entirety has to add these phrases to the url to get earlier comments.
Sorry, correction:
add “/comment-page-1” or “/comment-page-2” to the above url
(Off topic:
Hello, please, my intention in this blog here
is only to put a single questioning -
may be, there will be an anwer.
What about the existence of small stellar or planetary mass-like
black holes in double star systems where one of the companion is not
watchable because his light does not exist or is too faint ?
How to exclude that these cases of double stars
do not contain a (small stellar mass-like) black hole,
when there is no matter for accretion ?
In other words:
Please, to my opinion
not all relevant astronomical observations are
thoroughly investigated til today concerning
the existence of stellar black holes.
What about of stars which are changing their radial velocities
and where no companion star is watched ?
Is there a list of these cases ?
What about to derive from these astronomical data
an upper bound of danger (looking for all side effects
and put these into account)? — How to exclude small
planetar mass-like or small star mass-like blackholes, if they
have no matter for accretion and therefore cannot emit
x-rays ff ??
I regret that I have no knowledge about such analysis.
: end of Off-topic)
This is a very original scientific question that deserves scrutiny in its own right.
The connection to the LHC safety issue, made here in addition, could portend that the question posed becomes as tabooed as today holds true for the question of whether CERN’s refusal to update its safety report for 4 years deserves any scientist’s or the media’s attention.
Or the other tabooed question of whether CERN can produce black holes — which was once one of the founding reasons for the LHC.
Please, dear colleagues: Do take this serious scientist’s question seriously irrespective of its connection to the LHC.