Lease, give a statement to the effect that the planet’s short-term survival is NOT threatened by CERN’s currently running LHC experiment. There is un-disproved scientific evidence that to the contrary. Thank you.
Otto E. Rossler, University of Tubingen, Germany
Letter P is missing in the first word.
For the uniformed reader: there is no such scientific evidence, just a claim from Prof. Roessler, which has been proven wrong long ago and many times since then. He is just not accepting this.
Dear colleague Peter Howell:
First, thank you for coming out.
Second, you are misinforming the readers to the best of my own knowledge. Please, give the evidence you believe to have.
Evidence which is years old and has been refuted without the original proponent coming back to it, you will hopefully not include.
This is the first time that a scientist who has a name takes the risk to out himself as my fact-wise opponent. Let the world see whether you can keep your stance.
I have for a long time been waiting for this moment. For all I ask the planet’s scientists for years is exactly the hard evidence which you claim to possess. The stronger you are as my scientific enemy, the more I will be grateful to you as a friend.
Rossler: give us a break from this grandstanding, lots of people have been throwing hard evidence at you for years and you’ve consistently refused to hear it. Now would you please come back to the other thread and explain why you think that some seconds are shorter than others?
Prof. Roessler: you are the one misinforming (better: lying to) the readers. The evidence proving you wrong has been shown to you many times, you just refuse to accept it. And the fact that you are rejecting to accept it is not refuting the evidence! As this forum shows again, discussing with you has been proven to be pointless, as you are ignoring any arguments, and refusing to come up with answers to very concrete questions.
So no, the evidence that your claims are wrong is all well known. But please stop spamming the web and trying to scare people with your dooms-day scenarios. I am actually stunned, that your university is going to keep you acting like this — but again, that’s non of my business.
So dear reader: the world will not end because of the LHC — there is not ONE nuclear physicist in the world, that is agreeing with Prof. Roessler’s claims, quite the opposite. When he first came out with his claims, people looked quite interested in to it (we all love to live) — but if you have some knowledge of SRT and nuclear physics, it becomes clear very quickly, that his claims are — rubbish! So go on and enjoy summer! I know I will!
Peter H.
Dear PassingByAgain: Perhaps you will believe Peter Howell if he does his job. I’m hurrying back to the other thread to see why two people there cannot come to grips with Einstein’s result — very interestingly, by the way, since they are closer to the truth with their 180-degree flip than the rest of the crowd.
Dear Peter Howell: Let us be civilized, please. Science is based on proof and disproof — dialogue. Not I “refuse to accept” their alleged counter-proofs which I showed to be false: they refuse to quote my papers and to respond to my counterproofs for 3 years.
I therefore developed Telemach — to facilitate CERN’s task. For Einstein’s equivalence principle on which it is based is much simpler than the Schwarzschild metric of general relativity which hosts my older gothic-R theorem. The latter follows from Telemach — so that disproving the Telemach theorem is all it takes for the scientific community to give an all clear signal to the planet. About a year has passed since I first proposed Telemach (the latest most, easily falsifiable version is on Lifeboat) and there is no counterproof in sight.
Your phrase “there is not ONE nuclear physicist in the world, that is agreeing with Prof. Roessler’s claims” is double-edged. There are very few surviving good relativists after my friends in the field passed away. The few good ones that remain are mostly former Eastern physicists who can hardly afford to defend the old (equally good) Zeldovich-Zakharov school; for Telemach successfully revives the Russian “frozen-star” theory of black holes.
Even though you made no claim that any one at CERN or elsewhere has disproved Telemach, you believe that the theorem must be “rubbish” as you say because “many” think so. The world learns from you that it owes its survival, or not, to a club of scientists who believe the method of opinion polling to be superior to the method of falsification according to Karl Popper.
Thank you, dear colleague, that in trying, you opened up the eyes of the world to the fact that CERN does NOT have any scientific argument to defend its decision to not admit the “scientific safety conference” officially requested by an administrative court half a year ago.
Dear reader wherever you live: you have the word of Mr. Howell that the world does not end because he believes CERN is safe. We all hope he is right with this gut feeling. The only evidence he and CERN have to give to the world is (quote): “the evidence that your claims are wrong is all well known.” I for one am not aware of any un-disproved evidence.
Dr. Howell: you are the most courageous supporter of CERN’s so far. For this fact I am grateful. In addition I thank you that you did old Europe the honor to add some perspective and color to my humble request to the Security Council to make sure an investigation into a question of life and death for the whole planet is no longer procrastinated until it is too late.
Mr. hnasel: Your question is meaningless since proper time depends on many factors as you know. The correct answer to your question I gave you before as you did not criticize.
In evaluating the potential planetary risks of the Large Hadron Collider, a background report from ConCERNed-International should be considered in addition to the important studies by Professor Rossler.
International groups critical of the LHC joined in producing this general critique of CERN’s safety arguments. Experts in the fields of physics, astrophysics, mathematics, risk assessment, logic and philosophy, as well as ethics and international law, contributed to the well-documented 66 page report, “Critical Revision of LHC Risks.” See:
http://lhc-concern.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/critical-…ed-int.pdf .
My heartful thanks.
This detached Austrian report was possibly the reason for the Cologne Administrative Court’s demand of a scientific safety conference last January.